Santorum on the separation of church and state

[mandym]

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.

Uh no, he specifically said he believes it. You have lied about him. Your posts regarding Santorum are unChristian. When you, as you have, make a habit of telling lies what does that make you?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Uh no, he specifically said he believes it. You have lied about him. Your posts regarding Santorum are unChristian. When you, as you have, make a habit of telling lies what does that make you?

ROFL, I answered your question and you still say I lied. Where it the lie in that I do not believe he believes in the separation of church and state as the founding fathers did. If he rejects Kennedy's belief he rejects what Jefferson wrote and what the founding fathers wrote.

As he disagrees with Kennedy, what do you think he means when he says he is in favor of the separation of church and state?

How will he balance that with his Catholic beliefs?

 

[mandym]

ROFL, I answered your question and you still say I lied. Where it the lie in that I do not believe he believes in the separation of church and state as the founding fathers did.

He is quoted, in your op, as saying he does. So your misbehavior is clear.

If he rejects Kennedy's belief he rejects what Jefferson wrote and what the founding fathers wrote.

He rejects what Kennedy wrote not the others. Kennedy insisted that our faith should not have an effect on our decisions when in office. That is what he rejects. And you know it.

As he disagrees with Kennedy, what do you think he means when he says he is in favor of the separation of church and state?

See prior post

How will he balance that with his Catholic beliefs?

Please provide a source that suggests this.

 

[Crabtownboy]

He is quoted, in your op, as saying he does. So your misbehavior is clear.




He rejects what Kennedy wrote not the others. Kennedy insisted that our faith should not have an effect on our decisions when in office. That is what he rejects. And you know it.



See prior post



Please provide a source that suggests this.

You are being very dishonest. I answer your questions. But you refuse or cannot answer mine. So until you decide discuss rationally and honestly, and this includes anwering questions, I see no reason to reply to you on this topic.

Now if you anwer the questions I will reply. If not, bye for now. Have a blessed day.

 

[mandym]

You are being very dishonest. I answer your questions. But you refuse or cannot answer mine. So until you decide discuss rationally and honestly, and this includes anwering questions, I see no reason to reply to you on this topic.

Now if you anwer the questions I will reply. If not, bye for now. Have a blessed day.

And there we have it. The left wing tactic. When you get backed into a corner you feign something false and run and hide.

 

[Crabtownboy]

He is quoted, in your op, as saying he does. So your misbehavior is clear.




He rejects what Kennedy wrote not the others. Kennedy insisted that our faith should not have an effect on our decisions when in office. That is what he rejects. And you know it.



See prior post



Please provide a source that suggests this.

Show me sources that backs up everything you say.

 

[InTheLight]

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.

Where do you come up with this stuff? It's been posted by Mandym already, but here it is again, from the LINK YOU PROVIDED:

"I'm for separation of church and state. The state has no business telling what the church to do"

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

Santorum never said anything of the sort. This is you making stuff up again. Santorum had said he objected to the line in Kennedy’s speech that read, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.” Santorum said he wanted more of a role for people of faith in public life than Kennedy had outlined.

Transcript of the interview:

SANTORUM: Because the first line, first substantive line in the speech says, "I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute." I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is 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.

This is the First Amendment. The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion. That means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square. Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, no, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate. Go on and read the speech. I will have nothing to do with faith. I won't consult with people of faith. It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent (ph) at the time of 1960. And I went down to Houston, Texas 50 years almost to the day, and gave a speech and talked about how important it is for everybody to feel welcome in the public square. People of faith, people of no faith, and be able to bring their ideas, to bring their passions into the public square and have it out.

 

[mandym]

Let's see if he can back up his assertion that Catholics do not like the concept of the Separations of church and state. I am calling him out to provide a source for this rather than hide behind false accusations.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Let's see if he can back up his assertion that Catholics do not like the concept of the Separations of church and state. I am calling him out to provide a source for this rather than hide behind false accusations.

Read the quote in an earlier post. Then go to the link and read the entire article.

 

[mandym]

Show me sources that backs up everything you say.

The sources are in your op. You have been exposed as dishonest and a false witness.

Mat_15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

Mat_19:18 He said to him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness,

Luk_18:20 You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.'"

 

[Crabtownboy]

"I'm for separation of church and state. The state has no business telling what the church to do"





Santorum never said anything of the sort. This is you making stuff up again. Santorum had said he objected to the line in Kennedy’s speech that read, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.” Santorum said he wanted more of a role for people of faith in public life than Kennedy had outlined.

Transcript of the interview:

SANTORUM: Because the first line, first substantive line in the speech says, "I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute." I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is 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.

This is the First Amendment. The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion. That means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square. Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, no, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate. Go on and read the speech. I will have nothing to do with faith. I won't consult with people of faith. It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent (ph) at the time of 1960. And I went down to Houston, Texas 50 years almost to the day, and gave a speech and talked about how important it is for everybody to feel welcome in the public square. People of faith, people of no faith, and be able to bring their ideas, to bring their passions into the public square and have it out.

Your quote came after this 'makes me throw up' quote. He was trying to backtrack in Michigan.

Here is the throw-up quote:

"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."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/rick-santorum-church-state_n_1304307.html

 

[Havensdad]

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.

No, it shows that people have done a lot of illegal, heinous things, and others have let them get away with it. The Constitution never intended for a single individual, or small group of individuals, to be able to change the Constitution at their whim. The "Separation of Church and State" is NOT in our Constitution, no matter how much activist judges may try to make it such.

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

Atheism is the religion of non-religion. To say that NO faith in God has a part in Government workings, is to establish atheism.

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?

They have a right to exist. They do NOT have the right to come into a community that is teaching the Bible in its public school, (as all the founders, including Jefferson, endorsed), or praying in the public schools (as all the founders, including Jefferson, endorsed), and say that "I am offended, so you have to stop." That is absolutely foreign to both the Constitution, and the writings of the founders. AND it establishes Atheism as the official religion. Which is why the textbooks in public schools can say that "The earth formed 4.5 billion years ago," and speak of the "accidental" occurrence of life, but cannot talk about God.

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

Each local community should be able to express the religions and culture of that community. To come into China town, and say, "You have to take all those dragons down, because they offend me," is ridiculous. It is oppressive to THAT culture/religion.

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:

Not at all. You are taking a phrase and defining it by modern standards. What THEY meant by "separation of Church and state," was NOT to eliminate religion from the Government sphere. That is just not what they wrote about. They did not want a Romanist Church starting an inquisition.

BUT, they also believed that the First amendments guarantee of free religious expression, ALSO applied to the Government sphere. Telling a City Council that they cannot pray to Jesus before a meeting, or telling a local school they cannot teach Bible classes, is a VIOLATION of the first amendment.

 

[Crabtownboy]

No, it shows that people have done a lot of illegal, heinous things, and others have let them get away with it. The Constitution never intended for a single individual, or small group of individuals, to be able to change the Constitution at their whim. The "Separation of Church and State" is NOT in our Constitution, no matter how much activist judges may try to make it such.

How would you rectify this?

Atheism is the religion of non-religion. To say that NO faith in God has a part in Government workings, is to establish atheism.

Who said this?

They have a right to exist. They do NOT have the right to come into a community that is teaching the Bible in its public school, (as all the founders, including Jefferson, endorsed), or praying in the public schools (as all the founders, including Jefferson, endorsed), and say that "I am offended, so you have to stop." That is absolutely foreign to both the Constitution, and the writings of the founders. AND it establishes Atheism as the official religion. Which is why the textbooks in public schools can say that "The earth formed 4.5 billion years ago," and speak of the "accidental" occurrence of life, but cannot talk about God.

You know Jefferson was a follower of the Deism philosophy/theology and literally cut portions out of his Bible that he did not like?

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was a book constructed by Thomas Jefferson in the latter years of his life by cutting and pasting numerous sections from various Bibles as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's composition excluded sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

Is this the Bible you would like to see taught?

Each local community should be able to express the religions and culture of that community. To come into China town, and say, "You have to take all those dragons down, because they offend me," is ridiculous. It is oppressive to THAT culture/religion.

We are a multicultural society and I believe people should be allowed the privileged to show their cultural symbols.

Not at all. You are taking a phrase and defining it by modern standards. What THEY meant by "separation of Church and state," was NOT to eliminate religion from the Government sphere. That is just not what they wrote about. They did not want a Romanist Church starting an inquisition.

Who are they?

There are those who would desire a Romanist Church dictating what can and cannot be done. I have know a few ... worked with at least two who felt this way.

BUT, they also believed that the First amendments guarantee of free religious expression, ALSO applied to the Government sphere. Telling a City Council that they cannot pray to Jesus before a meeting, or telling a local school they cannot teach Bible classes, is a VIOLATION of the first amendment.

I assume you would allow followers of Islam to say a prayer before a city council meeting or a ball game also.

Also, as many schools have many students whose family is Islamic you would also support the teaching of the Koran?

How about Buddhists texts in public schools?

 

[saturneptune]

The seperation of church and state is going to be the same the day after the election as it is today. Aside from activist judges, the acutal stating of a seperation would require a Consitutional amendment, just like the other thread that is discussing changing the electoral college.

I will take my chances of a Roman Catholic trying to use papacy influence over the nation before I would ever consider taking a chance on a cult and a member of a cult run this nation through the born in hell Mormon church.

 

[Benjamin]

Atheism is the religion of non-religion. To say that NO faith in God has a part in Government workings, is to establish atheism.

Ahh, what a profound truth! It gets right to heart of the matter, for what one speaks is in direct regard to what he treasures most.

(Luk 6:45)A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.