Santorum on the separation of church and state

[mandym]

Founders had a view that the Government stay out of the Church affairs, NOT that the Church was to stay out of government affairs!

they wanted to promote jesus[sic] and the Bible as foundations to build new republic on!

Ok I want this other guy to address his dishonesty in the op as a means to smear Santorum and for him to state exactly where the separation of church and state clause is.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Also please present the separation clause you mentioned earlier and while you are posting that you can repent of your dishonesty.

Article 6 of the US Constitution:

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"

This was reinforced by the 14th amendment ... the equal protection clause and applied by the Supreme Court in the Everson v. Board of Education case.

Now, I have politely answered your question. Do you agree with the Constitution? So far you have only answered with insults, but no rational background for your opinion.

 

[mandym]

Article 6 of the US Constitution:



This was reinforced by the 14th amendment ... the equal protection clause and applied by the Supreme Court in the Everson v. Board of Education case.

Now, I have politely answered your question. Do you agree with the Constitution? So far you have only answered with insults, but no rational background for your opinion.

First that does not answer my question as that has nothing to do with the separations of church and state. So show me the separation clause.

And you continue to avoid addressing your dishonest op and misrepresentation of Santorum's words.

 

[Crabtownboy]

First that does not answer my question as that has nothing to do with the separations of church and state. So show me the separation clause.

And you continue to avoid addressing your dishonest op and misrepresentation of Santorum's words.

So, what do you think the Constitution says?

Do you agree with Ronald Reagan when he said:

"We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate.

All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to to speak of and act on their belief.

At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral."

 

[Bro. Curtis]

C.T.Boy, how's come you ain't googled the "seperation clause" yet ? Or did you already, and now find a need to change the subject ?









:laugh:





And you still have that misrepresentation to explain.

 

[mandym]

So, what do you think the Constitution says?

Do you agree with Ronald Reagan when he said:

Deal with your dishonesty

 

[saturneptune]

I have got a different take on a thread that criticizes Santorum based on flimsy to nonexistent arguments about the Constitution. It is not there if one goes by the Constitution and flimsy to drag out an old Supreme Court ruling.

To me, that is not the point. The point is this is the only electable alternative to the Obama-Romney axis of pro abortion, pro gay rights, anti Christian ideals. What is it we are trying to do with threads like this, guarantee the election instead of making it 90% sure?

 

[Havensdad]

The separation of state clause never says that people of faith have no role in the public square. That is a totally different topic. That statement shows his lack of understanding of the concept of the separation of Church and State. It shows another area of great ignorance on his part. I am not sure if he is just ignorant or just attempting to garner votes.

On Baptist and separation of church and state:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists_in_the_history_of_separation_of_church_and_state[/FONT]

There is much more, but this is enough for now. Do some research ... Rick needs to do so.[/SIZE]

James Madison wrote on the separation of church and state:



This is what the separation of church and state is about, not about keeping anyone out of the public square.

There is no such thing in the Constitution as "Separation of Church and State." This is fallacious. The Constitution prevents government from establishing an official religion. However, the same people who wrote the establishment clause, bought Bibles with government money for use in schools, had open prayer meetings in Congress, praying in the name of Jesus, and voted for monuments, etc., to have public monuments with Bible verses carved into them.

There is no such thing as "Separation of Church and State" except what has been invented by liberal courts. Nothing in the Constitution prevents denominational religious expression in the context of politics, government, and the public domain, NOR is this what early Baptists meant. They were concerned with government interfering with them; they did not want to be prevented from teaching the scriptures, or Jesus, in the public schools (for example), and thus establish atheism as the official religion.

 

[Havensdad]

Besides, Obama has apparently rejected the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION.

 

[Crabtownboy]

There is no such thing in the Constitution as "Separation of Church and State." This is fallacious. The Constitution prevents government from establishing an official religion. However, the same people who wrote the establishment clause, bought Bibles with government money for use in schools, had open prayer meetings in Congress, praying in the name of Jesus, and voted for monuments, etc., to have public monuments with Bible verses carved into them.

There is no such thing as "Separation of Church and State" except what has been invented by liberal courts. Nothing in the Constitution prevents denominational religious expression in the context of politics, government, and the public domain, NOR is this what early Baptists meant. They were concerned with government interfering with them; they did not want to be prevented from teaching the scriptures, or Jesus, in the public schools (for example), and thus establish atheism as the official religion.

I do not see how you can say there is no such thing as "separation of church and state" considering how many cases on this issue have been decided by the Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
(arranged by date)

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879)

Court finds that the federal antibigamy statute does not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Court finds that a New Jersey law which included students of Catholic schools in reimbursements to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)

City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html

 

[Havensdad]

I do not see how you can say there is no such thing as "separation of church and state" considering how many cases on this issue have been decided by the Supreme Court.

Because activist court judges, who ignore the historical application of the establishment clause, can NOT make suddenly appear what is not there. Courts have also declared killing children a "Constitutional right." Doesn't mean anything, except there are a lot of wicked, liberal, activist judges out there who are pushing an agenda. NOT surprising, BTW, when most of them are coming from God hating institutions like Harvard.

Historically, looking at the people who actually WROTE the constitution, and how THEY applied it, there is no such thing. In the actual text of the Constitution, there is no such thing. "Separation of Church and State," (unlike the actual establishment clause of the Constitution) actually VIOLATES the establishment clause, by establishing Atheism as the official state sponsored religion.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Because activist court judges, who ignore the historical application of the establishment clause, can NOT make suddenly appear what is not there. Courts have also declared killing children a "Constitutional right." Doesn't mean anything, except there are a lot of wicked, liberal, activist judges out there who are pushing an agenda. NOT surprising, BTW, when most of them are coming from God hating institutions like Harvard.

So, if a future court overturned all those cases, would you consider those judges activist?

Also, the question is not whether you or I like or dislike their decisions. There are decisions I disagree with. That is a mute point in this discussion. The fact, like it or hate it, that these decisions were made means the "separation of church and state" is very grounded in our laws.

Historically, looking at the people who actually WROTE the constitution, and how THEY applied it, there is no such thing. In the actual text of the Constitution, there is no such thing. "Separation of Church and State," (unlike the actual establishment clause of the Constitution) actually VIOLATES the establishment clause, by establishing Atheism as the official state sponsored religion.

I do not see it as establishing an atheistic religion as the state religion. You cannot find this in any law in the US.

Primarily they are protecting the rights of all religions, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist. You and I do not agree with religions that are not Christian. However, should their rights to exist be protected as long as they do not plan the overthrow of the government, or the harm of of other citizens?

If other religious are not to be protected, then what would prevent various Christian groups from being persecuted?

Additionally writings by Jefferson, Madison, etc. show they desired a separation between the church and state. They knew the abuses that had occurred in the colonies when religious institutions had too much political power. One example from James Madison's writings:

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
― James Madison

 

[DaChaser1]

So, if a future court overturned all those cases, would you consider those judges activist?

Also, the question is not whether you or I like or dislike their decisions. There are decisions I disagree with. That is a mute point in this discussion. The fact, like it or hate it, that these decisions were made means the "separation of church and state" is very grounded in our laws.



I do not see it as establishing an atheistic religion as the state religion. You cannot find this in any law in the US.

Primarily they are protecting the rights of all religions, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist. You and I do not agree with religions that are not Christian. However, should their rights to exist be protected as long as they do not plan the overthrow of the government, or the harm of of other citizens?

If other religious are not to be protected, then what would prevent various Christian groups from being persecuted?

Additionally writings by Jefferson, Madison, etc. show they desired a separation between the church and state. They knew the abuses that had occurred in the colonies when religious institutions had too much political power. One example from James Madison's writings:

the founders recognised jesus Bible Christianity as the BEST religion, that the republic was to be founded upon their principles, and that while ALL freedom to do you r own religious practices was allowed, Christian was to be encouraged as BEST way to go, and the religion that American was based upon!

 

[Crabtownboy]

the founders recognised jesus Bible Christianity as the BEST religion, that the republic was to be founded upon their principles, and that while ALL freedom to do you r own religious practices was allowed, Christian was to be encouraged as BEST way to go, and the religion that American was based upon!

I agree Christianity is best. However that is not the topic of the separation of church and state.

Are you suggesting that other the freedoms of religions are not and should not be protected?

 

[mandym]

I agree Christianity is best. However that is not the topic of the separation of church and state.

Are you suggesting that other the freedoms of religions are not and should not be protected?

Deal with your dishonesty

 

[Crabtownboy]

Deal with your dishonesty

Nothing dishonest in my posts or opinion. Santorum does not support the separation of church and state. He is a staunch Catholic and the Catholic Church denounces the concept.

The fact is that separation of Church and State, of the kind that we have in all of the liberal democracies of the world, has been consistently and repeatedly denounced by the pre-conciliar Popes in no uncertain terms. In the Syllabus of Errors, for example, Pope Pius IX condemned as false the proposition that, "In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship."

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a050615.html

Santorum says Kennedy's comment makes him sick because it goes against the Catholic stance against the separation of church and state.

Look at history. The church and government of Catholic dominated countries fought tooth and nail against the concept. Santorum is simply a part of that tradition.

Note the stance of the Catholic Church is "that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship". In other words, no one should have any religious freedom except the Catholic Church.

If you want to run that risk, then OK. But I do not want to run such a risk.

Now, answer my questions. I have shown you clearly that I was not being dishonest. And please stick with the topic.

 

[mandym]

Nothing dishonest in my posts or opinion. Santorum does not support the separation of church and state. He is a staunch Catholic and the Catholic Church denounces the concept.

So your assumption is that because he is Catholic you have grounds to stand on how you took his words out of context in the op and misrepresented what he said?

Are you prejudice against Catholics? Do you have a litmus test that Catholics should not be in office? Sounds like it.

Just a reminder in the op he states that he does support the separation of church and state. So now you have been dishonest yet again.

From the op:

"I'm for separation of church and state. The state has no business telling what the church to do," he said. "And now it's the church, people of faith who have no right to come to the public square and express their points of view, or practice their faith outside of their church."

 

[Crabtownboy]

So your assumption is that because he is Catholic you have grounds to stand on how you took his words out of context in the op and misrepresented what he said?

Are you prejudice against Catholics? Do you have a litmus test that Catholics should not be in office? Sounds like it.

Just a reminder in the op he states that he does support the separation of church and state. So now you have been dishonest yet again.

It was his quote. When a man says that Kennedy's speech on the separation of church and state makes him sick, and when that man puts an interpretation on it that Kennedy did not mean, than no one that I have ever heard of believes other than Santorum, then I am left with the only logical conclusion; i.e. he does not believe in the separation of church and state, at least not in the way the founding fathers believed in and desired. Santorum's interpretation that Kennedy meant no people of faith could be in the public square is a false interpretation. To give him the benefit of the doubt I believe he said this to try to sway right wing religious folks votes his way. But it is dangerous grounds he is stepping toward.

Am I prejudice against Catholics? No. To be prejudice you have to pre-judge. I did not say the Catholic Church believes the concept of the separation of church and state is wrong until I found proof of that belief.

What I am against, what the founding fathers of this country were against was any possibility of a state church being declared. To do this they have to give freedom to all religions as long as that religion does not stand for the over throw of the government or to harm the people who do not believe as they do.

 

[mandym]

It was his quote. When a man says that Kennedy's speech on the separation of church and state makes him sick, and when that man puts an interpretation on it that Kennedy did not mean, than no one that I have ever heard of believes other than Santorum, then I am left with the only logical conclusion; i.e. he does not believe in the separation of church and state.

Except in the op you only pulled part of the quote and intentionally left out the part where he says he does believe it. So given the fact that he said specifically he does hold to it and you have both ignored his statement and then said he believes to the contrary I am only left with the logical conclusion that you intended to misrepresent his words so you could misrepresent his position. Very dishonest.

Am I prejudice against Catholics? No. To be prejudice you have to pre-judge. I did not say the Catholic Church believes the concept of the separation of church and state is wrong until I found proof of that belief.

Good old fashion left wing double speak

What I am against, what the founding fathers of this country were against was any possibility of a state church being declared. To do this they have to give freedom to all religions as long as that religion does not stand for the over throw of the government or to harm the people who do not believe as they do.

Which has nothing to do with what Santorum said in the op.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Which has nothing to do with what Santorum said in the op.

Of course he would never come right out and say,"The Catholic Church opposes the separation of church and state and that is why I also oppose it." I give him much more intelligence than that.



Are you prejudice against Catholics because you do not recognize the Pope as infallible?