PDA

View Full Version : Separation of church and state makes Santorum "want to throw up".



Iterated
02-26-2012, 12:22 PM
“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said. “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.”

Later in the interview, Stephanopoulos asked Santorum, “You think you wanted to throw up?”

“Well, yes, absolutely,” Santorum replied. “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? That makes me throw up.”

What a dumbass, and clear misinterpretation of separation of church and state.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/santorum-says-he-almost-threw-up-after-reading-jfk-speech-on-separation-of-church-and-state/2012/02/26/gIQA91hubR_blog.html

MediaDeit
02-26-2012, 12:35 PM
What a dumbass, and clear misinterpretation of separation of church and state.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/santorum-says-he-almost-threw-up-after-reading-jfk-speech-on-separation-of-church-and-state/2012/02/26/gIQA91hubR_blog.html

Santorum has no shot if he gets the nomination, he won't win any swing states... and if he does have any shot it just shows how ****ing disgusting this country is.

Carpig
02-26-2012, 12:44 PM
What a dumbass, and clear misinterpretation of separation of church and state.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/santorum-says-he-almost-threw-up-after-reading-jfk-speech-on-separation-of-church-and-state/2012/02/26/gIQA91hubR_blog.html

Since the words "separation of Church and State" are found nowhere in the Constitution, perhpas the misinterpretaion is yours.

And the article is taking things out of context. Kennedy was trying to overcome the prevailing opinion that if he were to be elected that the Pope would be giving him orders. Santorum is objecting to the fact that faith can no longer be a part of public life.

Iterated
02-26-2012, 12:57 PM
Since the words "separation of Church and State" are found nowhere in the Constitution, perhpas the misinterpretaion is yours.

And the article is taking things out of context. Kennedy was trying to overcome the prevailing opinion that if he were to be elected that the Pope would be giving him orders. Santorum is objecting to the fact that faith can no longer be a part of public life.

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution, I am aware of that.

But that's not what I was saying at all.

He said "To say that people of faith have no role in the public square?", meaning he thinks that separation of church and state means that people of faith cannot make decisions, which is clearly retarded.

AboveAverage
02-26-2012, 01:13 PM
http://i.imgur.com/1RBb1.gif

Phil9
02-26-2012, 01:20 PM
Since the words "separation of Church and State" are found nowhere in the Constitution, perhpas the misinterpretaion is yours.

And the article is taking things out of context. Kennedy was trying to overcome the prevailing opinion that if he were to be elected that the Pope would be giving him orders. Santorum is objecting to the fact that faith can no longer be a part of public life.



"Separation of Church and State" is just a component of the Establishment Clause as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Being able to "open carry" guns in society isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution but it's implied. "Separation" is no different.

32lax
02-26-2012, 02:46 PM
brief history lesson on the establishment clause:

at the time of the ratification of the bill of rights, many states had official religions established. the original purpose of the clause was to protect those.

now, after 14th amendment incorporation, the scope of the establishment clause was somewhat expanded; however, since incorporation only protects individual rights at the state level, the only application of clause is to protect individuals from having their own religion discriminated against.

most importantly, the establishment clause was never intended to expell all religion from the public square. it was intended to prevent the government from favoring one at the expense of others.

Who?
02-26-2012, 03:03 PM
He has gone far beyond full retard, past the point of no return.

gf7R6KSgvhM

berstared hard @ 1:37 when that dumbass mentioned James Madison's name... (for the unaware http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm )

I have no respect for anyone who takes this fool seriously.

frankenstein78
02-26-2012, 03:17 PM
Holy crap he is dumb. Needs to retake reading comprehension 101.

MangoPort
02-26-2012, 03:20 PM
Less focus on what the constituition says and what is RIGHT for the country.

Religion and policy do not mix. The decisions a politician makes should be about what his constitients want and what will improve the quality of life for most people, while not trampling on the rights of others. These are analytical and economic decisions, and you won't find the answer to these questions in the bible. If you're using the bible to guide you and give you integrity then you shouldn't be in politics in the first place. The desire to do the right thing by your fellow man should be natural to you.

dakensta
02-26-2012, 03:26 PM
Since the words "separation of Church and State" are found nowhere in the Constitution, perhpas the misinterpretaion is yours.
since abortion is not mentioned in the constitution does that mean abortion is unconstitutional? or does it mean it's nothing to do with the government?

Beeewbs
02-26-2012, 03:27 PM
Since the words "separation of Church and State" are found nowhere in the Constitution, perhpas the misinterpretaion is yours.


derp, "freedom of religion" isn't in the constitution either. I guess you don't have freedom of religion.

TH3SHR3DD3R
02-26-2012, 03:29 PM
http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2012/02/is-obama-a-christian.jpg

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2012/02/is-obama-a-christian.jpg

Oops.

feedmelies
02-26-2012, 03:31 PM
brief history lesson on the establishment clause:

at the time of the ratification of the bill of rights, many states had official religions established. the original purpose of the clause was to protect those.

now, after 14th amendment incorporation, the scope of the establishment clause was somewhat expanded; however, since incorporation only protects individual rights at the state level, the only application of clause is to protect individuals from having their own religion discriminated against.

most importantly, the establishment clause was never intended to expell all religion from the public square. it was intended to prevent the government from favoring one at the expense of others.

Truth. But most don't want to hear it.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

I'm agnostic BTW. I don't care much to see religion influence government, but history is history.

NWDub
02-26-2012, 03:48 PM
Jesus would be displeased with rick santorum. Very srs.

Carpig
02-26-2012, 04:03 PM
derp, "freedom of religion" isn't in the constitution either. I guess you don't have freedom of religion.

Free exercise clause.

It expressly permits the practice of any religion. As well, the establishment clause prohibits the government from establishing an institutional religion or recognizing an already established institutional religion as part of our power structure. No where is the intent to remove god and faith from public life.

Streetbull
02-26-2012, 04:13 PM
When most Americans think 'Christian', they associate that with 'moral'. When they think 'agnostic' or 'atheist', they think 'immoral'. That's just the way most think.

Santorum is portraying himself as a 'Christian' (moral) alternative to the Mormon Romney and the suspect-Christian Obama.

I'm guessing he is 50-50 to beat Obama on that alone. Now let the rising gas prices tank the economy...

Can you all say: President Santorum?

Beeewbs
02-26-2012, 04:14 PM
Free exercise clause.

That clause does not say "freedom of religion," just like the other clause does not say "separation of church and state." The point is that is what they both amount to.



It expressly permits the practice of any religion. As well, the establishment clause prohibits the government from establishing an institutional religion or recognizing an already established institutional religion as part of our power structure. No where is the intent to remove god and faith from public life.

No, when it says "no law respecting the establishment of religion," it's not just saying you can't use it to establish a religion, but you can't use it respecting an establishment, as in, the noun "establishment."



World English Dictionary
establishment (ɪˈstæblɪʃmənt)

— n
1. the act of establishing or state of being established
2. a. a business organization or other large institution
b. the place where a business is carried on
3. the staff and equipment of a commercial or other organization
4. the approved size, composition, and equipment of a military unit, government department, business division, etc, as formally promulgated
5. any large organization, institution, or system
6. a household or place of residence
7. a body of employees or servants
8. ( modifier ) belonging to or characteristic of the Establishment; orthodox or conservative: the establishment view of history


And no one is saying you can't be religious in public - you just can't use the government to do so.

NeoKantian
02-26-2012, 04:15 PM
The only people who are against separation of church and state are "enlightened" paulistas and religious fundamentalists.

People want to argue about the history of separation, but that's irrelevant.

jmonty
02-26-2012, 04:19 PM
santorum = /facepalm

interesting tidbit i found while looking over a wiki article on 'separation of church and state':

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

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

blip63
02-26-2012, 04:21 PM
When most Americans think 'Christian', they associate that with 'moral'. When they think 'agnostic' or 'atheist', they think 'immoral'. That's just the way most think.

Santorum is portraying himself as a 'Christian' (moral) alternative to the Mormon Romney and the suspect-Christian Obama.

I'm guessing he is 50-50 to beat Obama on that alone. Now let the rising gas prices tank the economy...

Can you all say: President Santorum?

Santorum will never win swing states. I said it another thread -- Obama can own up to being responsible for 9/11 and serve aborted fetuses at white house events and beat Santorum. Santorum can spout off and enjoy the limelight all he wants but the only way he'll step foot in the white house is if Obama invites him. The only realistic chance republicans have to beat Obama is Romney, simply because he won't get people coming out to vote against him like people will do with Santorum. Also, rising gas prices may be coming but take note of other economic indicators(housing for one, which you yourself pointed out.) The second half of this year is what will determine if Obama gets a 2nd term or not. If the economy regresses further he will be a one term president assuming Romney is the nominee.

jmonty
02-26-2012, 04:27 PM
When most Americans think 'Christian', they associate that with 'moral'. When they think 'agnostic' or 'atheist', they think 'immoral'. That's just the way most think.

i don't think that is a legitimate statement. maybe 50 years ago. i dunno though. i don't have proof either way.

Streetbull
02-26-2012, 04:56 PM
i don't think that is a legitimate statement. maybe 50 years ago. i dunno though. i don't have proof either way.

Most people don't think philosophically; they just take what is given or at hand.

And then, think of who votes way more than any other age group...

Streetbull
02-26-2012, 04:59 PM
Santorum will never win swing states. I said it another thread -- Obama can own up to being responsible for 9/11 and serve aborted fetuses at white house events and beat Santorum. Santorum can spout off and enjoy the limelight all he wants but the only way he'll step foot in the white house is if Obama invites him. The only realistic chance republicans have to beat Obama is Romney, simply because he won't get people coming out to vote against him like people will do with Santorum. Also, rising gas prices may be coming but take note of other economic indicators(housing for one, which you yourself pointed out.) The second half of this year is what will determine if Obama gets a 2nd term or not. If the economy regresses further he will be a one term president assuming Romney is the nominee.

Thoughtful post.

My thinking is that Santorum now represents what Obama represented in 2008 -- change. He didn't deliver. Instead, they see more of the same old sht.

I think they are ready for real change, for a genuine Christian who literally wears it on his 'sleeve'. And no one can deny that the guy is devout and wears it 'on his sleeve'.

32lax
02-26-2012, 05:00 PM
The only people who are against separation of church and state are "enlightened" paulistas and religious fundamentalists.

People want to argue about the history of separation, but that's irrelevant.

I'm neither, but that doesn't make the history that I posted any less true.

The history of the establishment clause is absolutely relevant. It's the law.

32lax
02-26-2012, 05:07 PM
That clause does not say "freedom of religion," just like the other clause does not say "separation of church and state." The point is that is what they both amount to.



No, when it says "no law respecting the establishment of religion," it's not just saying you can't use it to establish a religion, but you can't use it respecting an establishment, as in, the noun "establishment."





And no one is saying you can't be religious in public - you just can't use the government to do so.
I'm sorry, but that is not the correct interpretation of the establishment clause. The relevant definition is number 1, the act of establishing, not 2, the synonym with 'an institution'. Do you really believe that no law can be made that has anything to do with a church? or church affiliated institution? look at parochial schools- they are religious establishments that are most certainly subject to religious-specific rules and laws.

The actual standard for such laws is the lemon test:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test

Carpig
02-26-2012, 05:59 PM
That clause does not say "freedom of religion," just like the other clause does not say "separation of church and state." The point is that is what they both amount to.



No, when it says "no law respecting the establishment of religion," it's not just saying you can't use it to establish a religion, but you can't use it respecting an establishment, as in, the noun "establishment."





And no one is saying you can't be religious in public - you just can't use the government to do so.

Are you this dense on purpose? The free exercise clause explicitly states that religion cannot be prohibited. the establishment clause doesn't even allude to removing god and faith from the public sector.

frankenstein78
02-26-2012, 07:08 PM
When most Americans think 'Christian', they associate that with 'moral'. When they think 'agnostic' or 'atheist', they think 'immoral'. That's just the way most think.

Santorum is portraying himself as a 'Christian' (moral) alternative to the Mormon Romney and the suspect-Christian Obama.

I'm guessing he is 50-50 to beat Obama on that alone. Now let the rising gas prices tank the economy...

Can you all say: President Santorum?

Santorum has the worst odds of any GOP candidate against Obama. That's been shown in poll after poll. Romney or Paul are within 2%, which is within polling error range. Santorum is the only one that would get me to vote Obama for sure.

If Santorum is the final candidate, rising gas prices WON'T help him. People smart enough not to vote for Santorum are also the people smart enough to know that a President doesn't have say over gas prices. The herp derp 'hi gas prices are Obama's fault' crowd will be Santorum voters already, so he won't gain extra traction with that.

squanto
02-26-2012, 07:11 PM
Are you this dense on purpose? The free exercise clause explicitly states that religion cannot be prohibited. the establishment clause doesn't even allude to removing god and faith from the public sector.

Clapton is god, if you numb nuts are going to worship some wimpy little jewish zombie in taxpayer funded buildings, I want a depiction of Eric Clapton right next to him.

A-GAME
02-26-2012, 07:13 PM
What a surprise, yet another presidential candidate who is obviously retarded.

squanto
02-26-2012, 07:19 PM
Also, Ron Paul denying a separation of church and state too is fantastic.

The reason I say that is I could literally feel the brief trembling in the paulbots fingertips as they back away from the keyboard and realize they can't chime in here because their candidate is just as stupid as Santorum.

I love the internet.

B.O.L.A.
02-26-2012, 07:31 PM
Also, Ron Paul denying a separation of church and state too is fantastic.

The reason I say that is I could literally feel the brief trembling in the paulbots fingertips as they back away from the keyboard and realize they can't chime in here because their candidate is just as stupid as Santorum.

I love the internet.

Where did he say this and in what context? Honest question..

Realism
02-26-2012, 07:43 PM
Thoughtful post.

My thinking is that Santorum now represents what Obama represented in 2008 -- change. He didn't deliver. Instead, they see more of the same old sht.

I think they are ready for real change, for a genuine Christian who literally wears it on his 'sleeve'. And no one can deny that the guy is devout and wears it 'on his sleeve'.

I'll concede that being religious or appearing religious is a necessity if you want to win the presidency but I believe it is a delicate balance in contemporary America. Santorum is a devout Catholic but most people don't care how devout you are, just that you believe.

I can't believe that Baptists will still support him after his comment that he was "sickened by John F. Kennedy's assurances to Baptist ministers 52 years ago that he would not impose his Catholic faith on them " in the yahoo article.

The comment in the bold, if true, is political suicide and I can see the various Super PACs attacking Santorum for these statements.

B.O.L.A.
02-26-2012, 07:47 PM
Thoughtful post.

My thinking is that Santorum now represents what Obama represented in 2008 -- change. He didn't deliver. Instead, they see more of the same old sht.

I think they are ready for real change, for a genuine Christian who literally wears it on his 'sleeve'. And no one can deny that the guy is devout and wears it 'on his sleeve'.

Frothy can go wear his religion up his ass as far as I care. Dude is a raging lunatic.

BadMonkeyFunker
02-26-2012, 08:10 PM
http://i40.tinypic.com/rjqceb.jpg

Hey_Jay
02-26-2012, 09:22 PM
lol this guy is psychotic. frontrunner

GymShowerNap
02-26-2012, 09:25 PM
Also, Ron Paul denying a separation of church and state too is fantastic.

The reason I say that is I could literally feel the brief trembling in the paulbots fingertips as they back away from the keyboard and realize they can't chime in here because their candidate is just as stupid as Santorum.

I love the internet.


proof?

Weightaholic
02-26-2012, 11:44 PM
What a dumbass, and clear misinterpretation of separation of church and state.




Not a dumbass at all. He's just appealing to the religious whackadoodles. A politically savvy move. they'll eat this sort of nonsense up.

kratosbrah
02-27-2012, 12:03 AM
President Santorum.

Yes. We. Can.

2012.

The year our lord and savior Jesus Christ returns and channels himself through the modern prophet, the gentleman, the statesman, the intellectual... Santorum...

A-GAME
02-27-2012, 12:05 AM
President Santorum.

Yes. We. Can.

2012.

The year our lord and savior Jesus Christ returns and channels himself through the modern prophet, the gentleman, the statesman, the intellectual... Santorum...


http://i41.tinypic.com/vh6ihu.jpg

kratosbrah
02-27-2012, 12:10 AM
http://i41.tinypic.com/vh6ihu.jpg

http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/rick_santorum_official_photo.jpg

http://www.leadership-with-you.com/images/jesuschrist.jpg

The resemblance is uncanny...

A-GAME
02-27-2012, 12:11 AM
lold i will rape you now




edit : No i wont. I have given out too much reputation over the past 24 hours

http://i39.tinypic.com/b3myhl.jpg

kratosbrah
02-27-2012, 12:17 AM
lold i will rape you now




edit : No i wont. I have given out too much reputation over the past 24 hours

http://i39.tinypic.com/b3myhl.jpg

negged

char1zard
02-27-2012, 12:41 AM
Imma vote for him and hope Tim Tebow is his vice president. Tired of lib-er-als ruinin ma country.

Hinterseer
02-27-2012, 02:16 AM
Do people actually support Rick Scrotum?

I'm not American...

frasersteen
02-27-2012, 02:27 AM
No, when it says "no law respecting the establishment of religion," it's not just saying you can't use it to establish a religion, but you can't use it respecting an establishment, as in, the noun "establishment."

The only proper way to interpret that is that no law should respect any religion. So by extension every law must insult religion or be unconstitutional.

Frankly, nearly every law we have is unconstitutional because none of them have a clause where they call any religious establishments c*nts. All our laws show religion more respect than the constitution allows.

squanto
02-27-2012, 03:09 AM
http://i.imgur.com/EBW90.jpg

Make sure everyone keeps wondering why he's losing the nomination too, after all, he loves gooooooolllldddd and says "liberty" a lot!

BMac984
02-27-2012, 03:24 AM
This man is an idiot! It's scary to think that we have people like this involved in our political system. His outlook on America and its future are filled with backward steps. Instead of looking toward new ways to improve the country, he feels the need to rehash old ideas and ideals that have failed in the past. It's fine if you're a devout Catholic, but your governing of the people can't be done when you have waged war on those with apposing beliefs.

b.spencer
02-27-2012, 06:00 AM
Where did he say this and in what context? Honest question..

For instance, in an essay entitled "The War on Religion," Dr. Paul wrote --


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. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs.

Here - http://www.ronpaularchive.com/2002/06/restoring-first-amendment-protections-of-religion/

Dr. Paul introduces legislation attempting to remove any case involving religion from the jurisdiction of the Federal courts and voiding cases already heard involving religion that have come before the SCOTUS. Apparently, as long as it is at the state level, Dr. Paul has no problem with establishing official religions and enacting particular doctrines as laws.


The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.

I do disagree with Squanto on one point. Frothy wants to enact Catholicism at the Federal level. Dr. Paul would oppose that. He would be fine with enacting it on the state level. And we would get the same answer we typically get from the Paulbots -- don't want to live in a theocracy, fine. Just move to another state.

Carpig
02-27-2012, 06:11 AM
I do disagree with Squanto on one point. Frothy wants to enact Catholicism at the Federal level.

Source/quote?

frasersteen
02-27-2012, 06:29 AM
When will these phaggots realise that freedom of worship means freedom from the imposition of any faith.

A secular government is the only way this can be achieved. Faith can be even encouraged, but no particular faith or set of faith based values can be promoted over any other set lest the freedom of others be infringed. Secular does not mean anti-religious though, not integrating faith is not the same as opposing it.

NoodleArms
02-27-2012, 06:59 AM
can we throw this guy to the lions already?

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/254/517/a70.gif

Streetbull
02-27-2012, 07:02 AM
When will these phaggots realise that freedom of worship means freedom from the imposition of any faith.

A secular government is the only way this can be achieved. Faith can be even encouraged, but no particular faith or set of faith based values can be promoted over any other set lest the freedom of others be infringed. Secular does not mean anti-religious though, not integrating faith is not the same as opposing it.

This may not be practical in a republic where the majority is of a particular faith (Christian, Muslim etc). Appealing to those ideas leads to power.

Remember, 70% of Americans believe in Satan.

Streetbull
02-27-2012, 07:05 AM
"To Santorum, intelligence is a manifestation of the “vice” of pride. In Santorum’s way of “thinking,” there is no difference between legitimate pride in one’s discovery of objectively demonstrable truths (e.g., the theory of evolution or that of relativity) and the “pride” of, say, Richard Rorty, who denied the possibility of truth, or the vanity of John Rawls, who “proved” that no one deserves the fruits of his success.

To Santorum, these all are equally the “vice” of pride because they are claims to intelligence—which Santorum imagines arising from a supernatural demon talking in people’s ears.

Santorum’s comments do point to a crucial issue, the fundamental choice faced by all people: to think or not, to use one’s mind or not, to discover the nature of the world around us or not, to pursue intelligence or not. The “or not” alternative, in Santorum’s view, is the right alternative. Don’t think; have faith. Don’t read Darwin; read the Bible. Don’t look to the stars; look to Jesus. One path enables us to discover objective truths, pursue science, and live lives of reason and prosperity; the other subjects us to baseless fears of unnatural forces working beyond our understanding and leads to squalor."

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/fear-not-satan-but-santorum/

frasersteen
02-27-2012, 07:05 AM
This may not be practical in a republic where the majority is of a particular faith (Christian, Muslim etc). Appealing to those ideas leads to power.

Remember, 70% of Americans believe in Satan.

Which Satan?

You make that assertion without acknowledging that many Christian beliefs and values are not the same as those of other Christians, let alone the significant proportion of the country that completely disagrees with Christian ideals.

Thinman
02-27-2012, 07:53 AM
I think Santorum is being less than honest with people on his views on religion in the public square.
He believes that there is this war on religion going on, which I feel is over exaggerated. The more
troubling thing is, that he wants to no only have religion involved in public policy decisions, he wants
to pass laws that are based on his Christian beliefs. Anti abortion, stem cells, anti gay rights etc.. He wants
people to believe that Christians are the victims in some kind of cultural war. Talk about
someone wanting to divide people, Santorum is a good example.

jafomofo
02-27-2012, 08:04 AM
Since the words "separation of Church and State" are found nowhere in the Constitution, perhpas the misinterpretaion is yours.

And the article is taking things out of context. Kennedy was trying to overcome the prevailing opinion that if he were to be elected that the Pope would be giving him orders. Santorum is objecting to the fact that faith can no longer be a part of public life.

what do you mean it can't be part of public life? they thank god after every single speech? High schools still mostly have a convocation ceremony as part of graduation. There is a house chaplain. the last president held bible study in the white house daily.

Seldini
02-27-2012, 08:28 AM
I assume since he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, and believes in the free exercise of religion, that he would fully support the adoption of Islamic principles or even Sharia law in a given city, state, etc if a majority of people voted for them...

Not srs

Beeewbs
02-27-2012, 08:35 AM
The only proper way to interpret that is that no law should respect any religion. So by extension every law must insult religion or be unconstitutional.

Frankly, nearly every law we have is unconstitutional because none of them have a clause where they call any religious establishments c*nts. All our laws show religion more respect than the constitution allows.

What.

frasersteen
02-27-2012, 08:40 AM
What.

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

So congress must not prevent anyone exercising their religion but at the same time they are constitutionally required not to show any respect for any religion at all.


This should be obvious to anyone reading the constitution.

b.spencer
02-27-2012, 02:49 PM
Source/quote?

Will you see him be blatent about it - i.e. I want a Catholic theocracy. No. But consider example where Santorum says that he is an admirer of Opus Dei, then goes on to say --


Though the sprawling congress touched on many topics, one recurrent theme was the relationship between public life and faith. While speakers stressed that neither Escriva nor Opus Dei impose a particular political option, they also insisted that Catholicism must shape one’s approach to public policy.

Speakers cited a famous saying of Escriva: “Have you ever bothered to think how absurd it is to leave one’s Catholicism aside on entering a university, or a professional association, or a scholarly meeting, or a congress, as if you were checking your hat at the door?”

In contemporary Western debates, this idea of unity between faith and political allegiance often puts Opus Dei-inspired politicians on the right.

Santorum was a forceful champion of this view. He told NCR that a distinction between private religious conviction and public responsibility, enshrined in John Kennedy’s famous speech in 1960 saying he would not take orders from the Catholic church if elected president, has caused “much harm in America.”

“All of us have heard people say, ‘I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it’s not right for somebody else?’ It sounds good,” Santourm said. “But it is the corruption of freedom of conscience.”

Santorum told NCR that he regards George W. Bush as “the first Catholic president of the United States.”

“From economic issues focusing on the poor and social justice, to issues of human life, George Bush is there,” he said. “He has every right to say, ‘I’m where you are if you’re a believing Catholic.’ ”

http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2002a/011802/011802f.htm

I have no doubts that you will not agree that Santorum wishes to enact his religion in anyway, however.

Carpig
02-27-2012, 05:52 PM
Will you see him be blatent about it - i.e. I want a Catholic theocracy. No. But consider example where Santorum says that he is an admirer of Opus Dei, then goes on to say --



http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2002a/011802/011802f.htm

I have no doubts that you will not agree that Santorum wishes to enact his religion in anyway, however.

Making the claim that he wants to have a roman Catholic theocracy is nothing but dishonest fear-mongering. Nowhere does he advocate the use of clergy as government officials or the pope as ruler.

If you were to say that santorum is a devout catholic with beliefs that would have an effect on his decision making in the public realm, then you would be closer to reality.

NeoKantian
02-27-2012, 06:52 PM
I'm neither, but that doesn't make the history that I posted any less true.

The history of the establishment clause is absolutely relevant. It's the law.
No, it's irrelevant. It's just reguritated into an appeal to the founding fathers.