Santorum on the separation of church and state

[Crabtownboy]

This issue alone should prevent any Baptist from voting for Santorum. The separation of church and state is one issue that Baptist fought for as the US became a country. Do you really want a church hierarchy to have undue influence over the workings of our federal government?

Santorum is a practicing Catholic and I understand why he believes what he said below. It also reminds me of a quote I heard when Kennedy was running. A fellow said when asked about a Catholic being president, "It isn't the first Catholic president that I am afraid of, it is the second and third one that I fear."

Santorum said:

The "absolute" separation of church and state makes Santorum nauseous, he told ABC's George Stephanopoulos last month. The GOP candidate said former president John F. Kennedy's 1960s speech about keeping the church out of the Oval Office made him want to "throw up."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...n-church-state/story?id=15931995#.T2MdgHmeoRs

 

[mandym]

This is the most dishonest post I have seen from you. And that is saying a lot. Here is what Sanatorum said further:

"To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?" Santorum said.

And that is from your own link. You took his words and yanked them out of context to make his words say something completely different. Shame on you

 

[Crabtownboy]

This is the most dishonest post I have seen from you. And that is saying a lot. Here is what Sanatorum said further:



And that is from your own link. You took his words and yanked them out of context to make his words say something completely different. Shame on you

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:

The Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut sent a letter, dated October 7, 1801, to the newly elected President Thomas Jefferson, expressing concern over the lack in their state constitution of explicit protection of religious liberty, and against a government establishment of religion.

In their letter to the President, the Danbury Baptists affirmed that "Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions — That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor..."[4]

As a religious minority in Connecticut, the Danbury Baptists were concerned that a religious majority might "reproach their chief Magistrate... because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ," thus establishing a state religion at the cost of the liberties of religious minorities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists_in_the_history_of_separation_of_church_and_state

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

James Madison wrote on the separation of church and state:

no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

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

 

[mandym]

The separation of state clause never says that people of faith have no role in the public square. That is a totally different topic.

Since it is the very thing Santorum was talking about and you have dishonestly tried to avoid it is clear that since you posted the link to his words it is the topic. Shame on you

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.

Your statement shows how you are trying to twist his words into something he did not say. You ripped them out of context and have been a dishonest man bearing false witness.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Since it is the very thing Santorum was talking about and you have dishonestly tried to avoid it is clear that since you posted the link to his words it is the topic. Shame on you

It is Santorum who is trying to bring new meaning into the separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with allowing or not allowing people of faith into the public square. This is a fabrication by Santorum or a complete misunderstanding on his part.

Your statement shows how you are trying to twist his words into something he did not say. You ripped them out of context and have been a dishonest man bearing false witness.

What I have shown is that Santorum is either playing loose and fast politics or is completely ignorant of the topic.

 

[mandym]

It is Santorum who is trying to bring new meaning into the separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with allowing or not allowing people of faith into the public square. This is a fabrication by Santorum or a complete misunderstanding on his part.

Boy you are slicker than that which slides out of the south end of an owl. You have misrepresented Santorum in unChristian behavior and taken his words out of context. If you wanted to make a point about separation of church and state you used a poor example by quoting Santorum as he did not say what you tried to make him say. Seriously you need to step your level of maturity up to that of at least a college student and stop this shameful behavior and ungodly actions.

What I have shown is that Santorum is either playing loose and fast politics or is completely ignorant of the topic.

What you have shown is you are dishonest in an attempt to bash him.

 

[InTheLight]

The separation of state clause never says

I'd like to look up that clause. Can you show me where that is found in the Constitution?

 

[mandym]

The separation of state clause

I will double up on this question. Where did you find this mysterious clause?

 

[Aaron]

nevermind.

 

[mandym]

And to further add to the misrepresentation of santorum in the op here is a quote from the link in 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."

This op is an clear example of the desperate tactics of the left these days. It is shameful and no Christian should take part in this behavior.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

:laugh:

Boy, C.T.Boy's dishonesty is really showing.

I'll be looking for his answers.

 

[DaChaser1]

This issue alone should prevent any Baptist from voting for Santorum. The separation of church and state is one issue that Baptist fought for as the US became a country. Do you really want a church hierarchy to have undue influence over the workings of our federal government?

Santorum is a practicing Catholic and I understand why he believes what he said below. It also reminds me of a quote I heard when Kennedy was running. A fellow said when asked about a Catholic being president, "It isn't the first Catholic president that I am afraid of, it is the second and third one that I fear."

Santorum said:

have to rightly define what founders meant by "seperation"

refered to the government would NOT create state religion, would NOT dictate which religion was to be held...

DID want to have God and bilical principles in "public square", as most of them held that govenment to be effection had to be moral, as did the peop[le, and that God and religion was "necessity" for the republic to work!

 

[Crabtownboy]

have to rightly define what founders meant by "seperation"

referred to the government would NOT create state religion, would NOT dictate which religion was to be held...

DID want to have God and bilical principles in "public square", as most of them held that govenment to be effection had to be moral, as did the peop[le, and that God and religion was "necessity" for the republic to work!

I do not want the State dictating to the Church, nor do I was a any Church dictating to the government. I do not want any church to be a State church. One of the lessons of history is that when the church has too much political power very bad things happen. Look at the Islamic states of today. Look at Medieval Europe as another example.

From the Constitution:

"Article I "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

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

 

[Bro. Curtis]

There have been atheistic regiemes that have been far, far worse.

You still have to deal with yopur misrepresentation of Santorum's words.

Then, you can tell us what how Santorum's REAL words violate either article you just posted.

 

[DaChaser1]

I do not want the State dictating to the Church, nor do I was a any Church dictating to the government. I do not want any church to be a State church. One of the lessons of history is that when the church has too much political power very bad things happen. Look at the Islamic states of today. Look at Medieval Europe as another example.

From the Constitution:

Founders wanted to promote Christianity, as yuo could hold to what you wanted, on no religion, bu wanted to promote Christianity!

And to have biblical principles in action!

 

[mandym]

I do not want the State dictating to the Church, nor do I was a any Church dictating to the government. I do not want any church to be a State church. One of the lessons of history is that when the church has too much political power very bad things happen. Look at the Islamic states of today. Look at Medieval Europe as another example.

From the Constitution:

I see you are ignoring your unChristian dishonesty

 

[Crabtownboy]

Founders wanted to promote Christianity, as yuo could hold to what you wanted, on no religion, bu wanted to promote Christianity!

I do not understand your sentence.

And to have biblical principles in action!

Whose Biblical principles? Yours? Mine? The Catholic Church? The SBC? Pentecostals? Adventists?

 

[Crabtownboy]

I see you are ignoring your unChristian dishonesty

Do you agree with the Constitution?

What is your understanding of separation of church and state as it is presented in the Constitution?

 

[mandym]

Do you agree with the Constitution?

What is your understanding of separation of church and state as it is presented in the Constitution?

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

 

[DaChaser1]

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

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 and the Bible as foundations to build new republic on!