Santorum: Separation Of Church And State 'Makes Me Want To Throw Up'

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This world would be a lot better if everyone would just keep their religious beliefs, whatever they are, to themselves.

Yeah...all that preaching about loving your fellow man and being charitable towards the poorest amoung us--that's offensive and should be quashed.

Or are you just offended by the failures of human frailties by people that claim to follow a religion? To strive to follow a religious belief does not eliminate the humanity innate in all of us. There's always going to be issues like what has happened in the Catholic church or preachers getting caught being hypocrites, etc. That doesn't mean the message and the goal is wrong. It means we're all human and we usually, if not always, fall short in one way or another.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The erosion of state freedoms started in 1861 with Lincoln. Then went full on when they enacted the 17th Amendment. The loss of states rights goes hand and hand with the eroding of individual rights. Also Constitutional freedom has been taken away since the Supreme Court started interpreting "Constitutional law" instead of just the Constitution itself (look into Justice John Marshall).

Again, I didn't say the erosion started in the late 60s, I said it has accelerated since then. I guarantee you my parents' and grandparents' generations wouldn't have put up with the idea that there was no place for religion in public discourse. Now, there was a convention that socializing should not involve discussion of "religion or politics", but that didn't mean that we were prohibited from praying in school, or in public; it didn't mean we weren't suppose to defend our beliefs against others who assaulted the basis for those beliefs. Today, anyone who doesn't like Christianity or Judeaism seems to believe that they have the right to declare those beliefs with impunity, while Christians or Jews who profess their faith are somehow 'nye kulturniy' and should just shut up. But you notice, no one is saying that about Muslims or Buddhists or atheists.

 

[lucky4034]

Since when does religion own a monopoly on being a decent person?

Let's not pretend that religion made up "thou shall not steal".... Not everyone was stealing before Moses received the ten commandments.... and everyone knew that stealing was wrong before that point in time.

People didn't need God to tell them it was wrong... it was common sense. The reaction of the person they stole from should have been clue enough.

 

[Pocketman]

Again, I didn't say the erosion started in the late 60s, I said it has accelerated since then. I guarantee you my parents' and grandparents' generations wouldn't have put up with the idea that there was no place for religion in public discourse. Now, there was a convention that socializing should not involve discussion of "religion or politics", but that didn't mean that we were prohibited from praying in school, or in public; it didn't mean we weren't suppose to defend our beliefs against others who assaulted the basis for those beliefs. Today, anyone who doesn't like Christianity or Judeaism seems to believe that they have the right to declare those beliefs with impunity, while Christians or Jews who profess their faith are somehow 'nye kulturniy' and should just shut up. But you notice, no one is saying that about Muslims or Buddhists or atheists.

"What prohibits people from praying in public?"

 

[rambone]

"What prohibits people from praying in public?"

I really want to know why people have such a victim mentality on this subject.

 

[bigg cheese]

People didn't need God to tell them it was wrong... it was common sense. The reaction of the person they stole from should have been clue enough.

You're absolutely right. Man has a God-given conscience. You "just know" it's wrong.

On the other hand, I don't think the 10 commandments were created to make you Godly, either. Jesus actually noted the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who ridiculed him because they outwardly professed to obey all Mosaic law, but had not love.

Rather, they show man's innate failings to be perfect, and therefore that you need God.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

"What prohibits people from praying in public?"

"Offended and aggrieved" plaintiffs, lawyers, and judges.

Accomplises include, but are not limited to weak-kneed administrators, spineless school boards, and other politicians.

 

[sbcman]

You're absolutely right. Man has a God-given conscience. You "just know" it's wrong.

On the other hand, I don't think the 10 commandments were created to make you Godly, either. Jesus actually noted the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who ridiculed him because they outwardly professed to obey all Mosaic law, but had not love.

Rather, they show man's innate failings to be perfect, and therefore that you need God.

The Law was actually given to condemn (James 2:10, 1 Timothy 1:9, Galatians 3:13).

Since when does religion own a monopoly on being a decent person?

Let's not pretend that religion made up "thou shall not steal".... Not everyone was stealing before Moses received the ten commandments.... and everyone knew that stealing was wrong before that point in time.

People didn't need God to tell them it was wrong... it was common sense. The reaction of the person they stole from should have been clue enough.

Close, but not quite- try Romans 1:18-32.

"What prohibits people from praying in public?"

I really want to know why people have such a victim mentality on this subject.

Try this one, for starters. Several judges have a real issue with the name "Jesus."

Judge reaffirms: No ‘Jesus’ prayers

I personally have never been prohibited from praying in public in any way I choose.

IBTL!

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Yeah...all that preaching about loving your fellow man and being charitable towards the poorest amoung us--that's offensive and should be quashed.

Or are you just offended by the failures of human frailties by people that claim to follow a religion? To strive to follow a religious belief does not eliminate the humanity innate in all of us. There's always going to be issues like what has happened in the Catholic church or preachers getting caught being hypocrites, etc. That doesn't mean the message and the goal is wrong. It means we're all human and we usually, if not always, fall short in one way or another.

I know your first sentence is in purple but it insinuates that those who are religious are the only ones who are charitable or love their fellow man. That is just not true at all.

I have no issues with any religion, I have no issues with your faith, your message, or your goals. Believe whatever you want, pray whenever you want, go to church whenever you want, do whatever you want as long as you are not involving me. I just have no interest in hearing it, thats all. I would also never push whatever it is I believe on anyone else. It is their decision to make, not mine to push it on them.

That is all I meant. If someone doesn't want to hear what you are saying and you keep pushing it, they are going to fight back. (not saying you are btw) There would be a lot less drama and blood shed in this world if people of all faiths would be more tolerant of others and not push what isn't wanted.

That is the biggest issue I have with Santorum, he believes its his way or the highway. Not everyone in this country believes what he does or to the extreme that he does. There is a very good reason the Church and State are supposed to be separate, he wants to not only blur the line, but completely remove it. If he gets in I feel bad for anyone who doesn't believe what he does because he could make their life miserable.

 

[bigg cheese]

(not trying to make this a Bible study)

The Law was actually given to condemn (James 2:10, 1 Timothy 1:9, Galatians 3:13).

Context is king here:

Try reading more than just one verse.

James 2:8-10
"If you really fulfill [the] royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," [fn] you do well;

but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one [point], he is guilty of all. "

Christ fulfilled the law, and it no longer restrains us. Basically, if you love your neighbor as your self in all things, you don't need the law, because Christ replaced it.

On to 1 Timothy 1:9:

This doesn't even need to be debated -- it's pretty clear on its own.

"knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for [the] lawless and insubordinate, for [the] ungodly and for sinners, for [the] unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, "

If we were perfect, we wouldn't need the law, because it wouldn't need to show us that we're unrighteous. But since we aren't perfect, that's what it does.


Again, context is king -- read the preceding verses.
Galatians 3:10-13

"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed [is] everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."

But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God [is] evident, for "the just shall live by faith."

Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them."

Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed [is] everyone who hangs on a tree" "

This is the same as your first reference. Those who choose to abide by the works of the law will be cursed by it, because it only serves to, again, point to our own unrighteousness and point to the future Savior who would liberate us from sin.

Remember, under the law, man could only atone, or cover, sin -- it was not forgiven. Only Christ can forgive.

 

[Pocketman]

"Offended and aggrieved" plaintiffs, lawyers, and judges.

Accomplises include, but are not limited to weak-kneed administrators, spineless school boards, and other politicians.

Exactly!

...

Try this one, for starters. Several judges have a real issue with the name "Jesus."

Judge reaffirms: No ‘Jesus’ prayers

I personally have never been prohibited from praying in public in any way I choose.

IBTL!

You need to read the entire ruling concerning Bosma's prayer challenges. I know Brian (first met in a Bible study, ironically) and through happenstance had the opportunity to discuss this with the Jewish legislator who filed the original complaint. The whole controversy was over proselytizing in the Statehouse and not rotating the prayer through clergy of other faiths.

The prohibition involves state sponsored prayers that promote a specific religion. The U.S. Congress and military seemed to handle this appropriately. Most public (including school) officials take the easy route and just eliminate all prayer.

 

[wagyu52]

Hold up....

A. I don't criticize Santorum for being honest... actually, NOWHERE in any of my posts in this thread do I even mention his NAME?

Funny how you introduced him? My posts are about whether religion should be in politics, yet in this discussion you have derived me attacking Santorum in some way. Maybe for a reason? Probably the same reason why Mr. Santorum gets asked so many questions about his religion by the media.... much more than any other candidate??

What I will say, is that ANY CANDIDATE who feels compelled to wear his religion on his sleeve because he knows it appeals to a very large demographic of voters is out of line, although I can't really blame him as it is the sheeple who give him the motivation to be so prominent with it. If it was detrimental to his chances of getting voted in wouldn't do it would he?

If Barack Obama is indeed Muslim... its no wonder its a secret... because in this Country at this point in time... being Muslim would KILL YOU IN THE POLLS.

--------------------------------------------------------

As far as the "founders"... I don't remember mentioning them either? But since we are on the subject, obviously they did a great job drawing up the framework of this country... and their ideas have held up pretty sturdy over the short span of this nation. However, the times they are a changing and while NO ONE would care to discuss it... eventually its going to need some updating... some of that old world thought is going to need edited out, but right now it seems to be doing just fine.

Are you suggesting we overhaul the Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights? You can bet the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments will be gone, I trust none of our current politicians to preform this task. Not to mention states like ILL. to ratify, People that have been dead for 100yrs. will be voting in Chitcago.

 

[henktermaat]

-1 to Rambone for his creative editing of the title of this thread to create a headline that is inaccurate. I'm not a Santorum fan, but the headline in the thread is NOT accurate.

Agreed. Typical spin on his part.

Also, I agree with Santorum on this one, minus the vomiting. We've come way past disallowing a state-sponsored religion, which was the original intent; like the theocracies of europe.

 

[level.eleven]

Agreed. Typical spin on his part.

Also, I agree with Santorum on this one, minus the vomiting. We've come way past disallowing a state-sponsored religion, which was the original intent; like the theocracies of europe.

Oh please. That or something very similar has been in every headline for this story.

If you are looking for SPIN why don't you have a look at Rick's take away from JFKs actual speech.

"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?"

Now, go find where in JFKs speech he states that people of faith have no role in the public square. Rick is spinning things up for his base. It apparently worked on you.

 

[rambone]

I'm going to start holding townhall meetings to decide what to name my threads.

 

[Paul]

Oh please. That or something very similar has been in every headline for this story.

If you are looking for SPIN why don't you have a look at Rick's take away from JFKs actual speech.

"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?"

Now, go find where in JFKs speech he states that people of faith have no role in the public square. Rick is spinning things up for his base. It apparently worked on you.

This.

 

[bingley]

For some historical background on why JFK had to make his declaration and on the changes in the religious and political climate that have taken place since:

Why evangelicals love Santorum, hated JFK - CNN.com

But the Baptist ministers who witnessed Kennedy's speech surely felt differently. In the 1960s, evangelical leaders were not concerned that Kennedy was too secular; they were concerned that he was too Catholic.

 

[bigg cheese]

That article (not you) and CNN are full of fail.

So only non-religious groups can tell their members how to vote? Unions do that all the time. Admittedly, in order to be considered non-profit, religious groups can't say who to vote for, even though groups like SEIU that are "non-profit" do it every day.

Yay for double-standards.

 

[level.eleven]

That article (not you) and CNN are full of fail.

So only non-religious groups can tell their members how to vote? Unions do that all the time. Admittedly, in order to be considered non-profit, religious groups can't say who to vote for, even though groups like SEIU that are "non-profit" do it every day.

Yay for double-standards.

The point of the speech was to quell concerns of the president taking his marching orders from the Vatican. The President of the United States taking directions from the Pope. That's it, nothing more. Honestly, I would like to hear the same thing out of Romney and any other future candidate who belongs to an organization with living, infallible prophets who claim a red phone to a god.

 

[Pocketman]

That article (not you) and CNN are full of fail.

So only non-religious groups can tell their members how to vote? Unions do that all the time. Admittedly, in order to be considered non-profit, religious groups can't say who to vote for, even though groups like SEIU that are "non-profit" do it every day.

Yay for double-standards.

Apples and oranges. "non-religious groups," such as labor unions, are subject to government regulation.