Santorum: "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute"

Santorum, master at robbing the GOP of the last bit of credibility

What a clown spitting on the constitution like that

I thought he was educated enough to know that absolutely nothing is absolute.

When there are no moral absolutes, anything goes.

And since we're all into quoting dead politicians, here's a quote from Reagan regarding the separation of Church and State:

"When John Kennedy was running for President in 1960, he said that his Church would not dictate his presidency any more than he would speak for his Church. Just so, and proper. But John Kennedy was speaking in an America in which the role of religion…and by that I mean the role of all churches…was secure.

The climate has changed greatly since then. And since it has, it logically follows that religion needs defenders against those who care only for the interests of the state."

Yes, the culture and political climate has certainly changed since JFK's time. We've swung to the other extreme of pious secularism, where even the bare mention of moral and ethical values gets savagely attacked from all sides.

So who chooses the religion that we will be merging with the government?

Bad ju ju magumbo here. I think he just gave his campaign the LONG kiss goodnight...

So who chooses the religion that we will be merging with the government?

I have yet to hear Santorum, or any other Republican for that matter, advocate a theocracy.

The debate regarding moral values is best fought in the public square. All points of view are invited to debate. And, yes, that includes conservative Christians, to the chagrin of pious secularists.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


God, Religion, "Family Values" seems to be in the public discussion more than any other area!!

and...umm....sometimes, it's better to place more merit on what people are doing than what people are saying, since white man speak with forked tongues (heck, human beings speak with forked tongues, white, black, male, female.)
we invaded Iraq, because of the threat we seen them as, and well, then we allowed the arms that sadam had safely locked and guarded raided by the extremists and used against us. we have thrown the middle east into a chaos that it seems that the only ones who are gonna benefit from are those religious extremists!!!

I got a feeling that in the higher echelons, the christian extremists and the Islamic extremists are just as chummy as the republicans and the democrats are in the bars and social events that they gather at!!

they have the same motive...to hasten in "God's Kingdom" any way they can...
which means the power of state and church merged together! only, there is a set time for such a thing to happen and God does not need our help, it's not the christian's job to do. and every time man tries to do it, it results a pretty picture that is corrupted at it's core! you cannot force people, through law or coercion of any time to be "moral", you can only create hypocrites that will pretend to be "moral" who will then commence to create a legal and social system that punishes anyone who reveals the immorality to the public! which will result in the religion becoming a laughingstock for generations to come....
think about the witch hunts, religion and state intertwined,, rich and powerful, and with enemies who are privy to their lies, stir up a mass religious hysteria, cry witch, and alas, thousands of innocents burned in the name of "God"... and to this day, people point to that hypocrisy as a reason not to believe in that God!!!

God tried the authoritarian style for awhile, Priests and Kings, and then he sent Christ, who really didn't think too much of those priests, matter of fact, I think he has a lesser opinion of the priests than he did the roman empire that was occupying the land! and the flow began to reversed God would change the hearts of the people one by one and slowly, the world would change for the better. you can gripe about the immorality in our country all you want, but is it really more immoral than the times of old when rape victims were burned at the stake, innocent people were burned at the stake for being witches, and kings could pick out any women in the kingdom for their own, and well, if she was already married, no problem, he'd just murder the husband?? and all was done in the "Name of God"...
politics is a dirty business, always had been, always will be, name one politician in the arena today who hasn't lied! and, well, be honest, do you really want a president who would be honest enough that when he is asked by the leader of an opposing nation why we have ships gathering off his coast he tells them.."oh, they're there because we intend on bombing you tomorrow at noon!"

our gov't is part of the world, not spiritual in nature, would be unnecessary if the people really were "Godly"! It's corrupt, it's a den of theives.. adding God to that mixture would only do harm to the people's perception of God!

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

So who chooses the religion that we will be merging with the government?

I have yet to hear Santorum, or any other Republican for that matter, advocate a theocracy.

The debate regarding moral values is best fought in the public square. All points of view are invited to debate. And, yes, that includes conservative Christians, to the chagrin of pious secularists.

When you have a candidate who states bluntly that he will use the Bible as his authority over the Constitution of the United States of America, we have a problem.

The guy is nuts. I live in PA and we booted him because he got too crazy for even the Republicans.

Religion is the most devostating
element in STATE and should
NOT be allowed to operate
within.

Religion is PERSONAL period

Religion is the root to all EVIL..

A priest tells whats written (in his views).
The flock follows..BAD MOVE

1: Dont ever listen to a priest.
2: Read the tales your self.
3: THEN make up your mind.

When you have a candidate who states bluntly that he will use the Bible as his authority over the Constitution of the United States of America, we have a problem.

Which candidate ever stated this?

The guy is nuts. I live in PA and we booted him because he got too crazy for even the Republicans.

Doubtful.

Religion is the root to all EVIL..

Tell that to the homeless that eat at a soup kitchen run by a religious relief organization. I am sure they might have a different opinion to share with you.

For every finger you can point at "religion" as being evil, I can cite a hundred examples of "evil" in the secular realm unassociated with religion.

True religion - however rare - is not evil. True religion - regardless of the denomination - has the universal philosophy of brotherly love for one's neighbor, caring for the poor, and helping those in need.

False religion is evil by its very nature of being false.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

Religion is the root to all EVIL..

Tell that to the homeless that eat at a soup kitchen run by a religious relief organization. I am sure they might have a different opinion to share with you.

For every finger you can point at "religion" as being evil, I can cite a hundred examples of "evil" in the secular realm unassociated with religion.

True religion - however rare - is not evil. True religion - regardless of the denomination - has the universal philosophy of brotherly love for one's neighbor, caring for the poor, and helping those in need.

False religion is evil by its very nature of being false.

What you say here DOESENT exist..
There are ONLY the words and
*enterpretations of the preists...
And they have done a marvelous
job at F****** up all the scriptures
and books of the profets and the
likes. Im agnostic but ive read
enough of books to see what
a RETARDED world "Religion"
is...

What you say here DOESENT exist.. There are ONLY the words and *enterpretations of the preists... And they have done a marvelous job at F****** up all the scriptures and books of the profets and the likes. Im agnostic but ive read enough of books to see what a RETARDED world "Religion" is...

Oh, I exist all right, I assure you of that. Sounds like you are trying to push your agnostic, secular beliefs down the throats of the readers of this thread. How ironic.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

What you say here DOESENT exist.. There are ONLY the words and *enterpretations of the preists... And they have done a marvelous job at F****** up all the scriptures and books of the profets and the likes. Im agnostic but ive read enough of books to see what a RETARDED world "Religion" is...

Oh, I exist all right, I assure you of that. Sounds like you are trying to push your agnostic, secular beliefs down the throats of the readers of this thread. How ironic.

Sure do...
And when THEY stop showin their pathetiq myths down mine
ill stop...They can have whatever belife they want i couldnt care
less. But when they try to FORCE me to live by the same i go
in defence mode...I share ALOT of the rules in these myths,
but i do it as a HUMAN being, not a sheep...

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;..."
Treaty of Tripoli. Signed by John Adams. Who would you trust to understand the very basis for the founding of the country, John Adams or Rick Santorum?

So religion wants in to government. Let's start with taxes. $100+Billion in income, plus $600+Billion in property. Can they please pay their taxes now? No? Oh, they go running for the hills and start spouting about the first amendment when you mention that. Freedom of religion. What about freedom from religion?

While I'm at it, I'd like to register "The Church of Badgered" for tax exemption please. No? Because that's not a 'recognized' church... But I though there could be no official recognition...Oh, I see. You can pick and choose which religions you like and give tax exemption to. Cool. I'll just keep subsidizing these 'recognized' churches with my taxes, then? All tax payers get to pay a bit more just so people who believe in mythology don't get to pay taxes. That's fair. You don't agree? Then I will expect a check in the mail to cover my losses. Put up, or shut up.

Santorum wants no separation of church and state, but really won't hang with the inclusion of all religions, just his. S'funny how only three of the ten commandments actually made it into law (unless we're going to get new laws including coveting neighbors' slaves and oxen. Not a huge stretch the way things have been going.).

There was a time when the Catholic church got to call the shots. We refer to it as the dark ages.
History. We hide that information in books. Funnily enough, there's a ton of good reading by the 'founding fathers' (mostly deists, by the way) on why there should be a separation. You either support the constitution, or you want another dark ages. Can't have it both ways.

Sure, the Catholic church are really sorry about Galileo, and the Crusades (but let's not talk about the 'children's crusade, eh?), and the inquisition, and the suppression of science, and the child molestation, and the killings, the sectarian wars, and the bank frauds, and.......they're really very sorry. They promise nothing like that will ever happen again. They're not letting go of the hellfire and damnation and guilt and persecution, but they're sure they've got it all worked out now. Still not paying any taxes, though. Everything will be fine so long as we all keep putting money into the collection plates (notes only, remember!).

From what I've read in these threads the Christians - and especially the Catholics - have the monopoly on family values, morality, and ethics. Nobody seems to be able to follow in the footsteps of their Christ (all 'sinners' you see?), but they spend a lot of time sucking their teeth at anyone who fails their morality litmus test.

Tax the churches.

Santorum "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,"

He will not get my vote.

And the first church idiots that came on my property and tried to dictate how i live would find themselves at the point of my 12 gage

i am a christian deist and do not believe in organised religion

"Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business." Jesse Ventura,

I will take my chances with Mitt Romney

reply to post by CookieMonster09


I respectfully disagree. Although you are correct that this country had moral shortcomings, I don't think it has to do with people leaving religions. Even Lenny Bruce said in the 60s, "People are leaving religion and finding real spirituality." I think it has more to do with what society accepts...or what we are forced to accept. Political correctness, for example. I find that all of my atheist friends are a lot more reliable when making promises and keeping them.....just saying.

Whichever candidate is a catholic...well, you see the catholic has other, BIGGER problems to contend with.

I DO agree that there is no separation of religion and state. The 1st amendment of the Constitution was intended to keep the governement from making a state sanctioned 'official' religion, like what Henry VIII did in creating the Anglican church. also, the founding fathers did not want religious persecution as was the order of the day throughout Europe back then.

reply to post by ANNED

Better off with Ron Paul.

There was a time when the Catholic church got to call the shots. We refer to it as the dark ages.

Laughable.

Sure, the Catholic church are really sorry about Galileo, and the Crusades (but let's not talk about the 'children's crusade, eh?), and the inquisition, and the suppression of science, and the child molestation, and the killings, the sectarian wars, and the bank frauds, and.......they're really very sorry. They promise nothing like that will ever happen again.

An anti-Catholic rant that even the liberals could easily classify as hate speech.

For every attack made against the Church, I can give you a hundred positives about the Church that are never mentioned, mostly concerning the care of the least of our brethren throughout the ages -- the poor, the downtrodden, the sick, and the destitute.

It would behoove any serious scholar in this area to purchase a copy of the 4 volumes of Butler's "Lives of the Saints" to gain a truly balanced perspective on the Church and its history.

Tax the churches.

Why not start taxing half the population that doesn't pay income taxes? Let's start there first, okay?

Even Lenny Bruce said in the 60s, "People are leaving religion and finding real spirituality."

Ah, yes, the 60's hippies. That's who runs the country now -- All the far left radical hippies that were smoking dope in the 60's. That's the whole reason why this country is going to hell in a hand basket.

Even in the Catholic Church, the radical, dope smoking hippies invented Vatican II, which transformed the beautiful Latin Rite Mass into a Kumbaya orgy of hand-holding, banjo-playing, post-modern gobbly-goop.

There are some old school Catholics still around though, and Santorum is of this crowd - The old school Catholic. Santorum's views on morality were commonplace in the 1950's, but the radical hippies in our culture can't relate to his moral values today because the culture has been so degraded.

Better off with Ron Paul.

Dope smoking hippie in disguise.

Sure, the Catholic church are really sorry about Galileo, and the Crusades (but let's not talk about the 'children's crusade, eh?), and the inquisition, and the suppression of science, and the child molestation, and the killings, the sectarian wars, and the bank frauds, and.......they're really very sorry. They promise nothing like that will ever happen again.

An anti-Catholic rant that even the liberals could easily classify as hate speech.

Is any part of that untrue?
How is it hate speech if it's simply stating what did happen?

Did the Catholic church suppress science, excommunicate Galileo, and sentence him to a lifetime house arrest for stating what he knew was true (and actually was true) against church teachings? Yes/No?
Has the Catholic church been found to have a pattern of child molestation? Yes/No?
Were thousands of people killed during the Crusades for being non-Christian? Yes/No?
Did the inquisition try, torture, kill people for being non-believers? Yes/No?
Has the Catholic church been indicted for bank fraud? Yes/No?
Have they said that they are really sorry, and it won't happen again? Yes/No?
How is it hate speech to identify things that actually did happen?
Because you don't like it doesn't make it hate speech. It's true.
By the way, you should look up the "Children's Crusade." Very dark. Very sad. Very glossed over by the Church.
A lot of them got sold into slavery, you know. By the Catholics. Yes. That's true. Not hate speech.

As for your statement that the Catholic Church has done a lot of charitable work, well that's true. However, they were not the only ones. All charitable organizations are subject to IRS auditing, but never the churches. Funny that...
Christianity - and all its sects - does not have the monopoly on morality, and righteousness.

Let's start with taxing the churches, and then deal with everyone else. Shouldn't the churches set an example?
I'm sure the numbers will speak for themselves. Let's see what happens to the deficit.
If preachers/priests want to speak about politics they can be part of the community and pay taxes.

Again, my church - according to the first amendment - is just as valid as yours. Why am I not tax exempt?

reply to post by CookieMonster09


Question: Are you willing to accept the religious dogma of ALL religions to be part of your government?

I thought not.

Considering the monstrousness of what the RC church has been trying to cover up since the 60s, I think they should be taxed first....and heaviest.

I'll spell it out-child molestation.

How is it hate speech if it's simply stating what did happen?

Well, there are a few reasons as to why this would be considered hate speech by our far-leaning leftists. First, the examples given don't provide much depth or explanation, nor given any historical context. Secondly, there is no objectivity in these claims, just one-sided hysteria.

I am not claiming the Church to be perfect. But I also think you are severely discounting the positive attributes of the Church throughout history, and taking a severely one-sided, accusatory tone in your grievances. We could isolate each of these accusations one by one, and go into microscopic debate and detail on each and every accusation if you so choose, but I doubt that would change your opinion.

Do this. Head to a depressed city in America - say Detroit, or Cleveland, for example - and take a look at who runs the soup kitchens, the homeless shelters, and the food pantries. Many of these charitable organizations are run by arms of the Roman Catholic Church. This is just one, simple example.

There are literally tens of thousands of missionary nuns and priests working Third World countries to help end hunger, starvation, sickness, poverty, etc. These priests and nuns earn no income aside from basic necessities, and dedicate their entire lives to serving others. Many live a quiet life of prayer and service to mankind, and die with little if any recognition.

Who works in the prison system helping inmates? Catholic missionaries.

So, before you go off on some one-sided rant against the Roman Catholic Church, about some historical event hundreds of years ago, take into account the good that the Church has done in helping mankind. That good is real, measurable, and has been vital to lifting up the poor and oppressed worldwide.

Children's Crusades, you say? That's the best you can do? Heck, even Wikipedia has numerous sources cited dispelling this ludicrous myth: en.wikipedia.org...

Question: Are you willing to accept the religious dogma of ALL religions to be part of your government?

I don't believe the public square calls for censorship. Whether one is Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist, or any other religion -- or even agnostic for that matter -- all are called to participate in public debate. Santorum shouldn't be excluded because of his religious beliefs. Last I heard, we still had freedom of speech in this country.

I'll spell it out-child molestation.

Again, let's put this in the proper context. Go here:

www.psychwww.com...

"Therefore, the odds that any random Catholic priest would sexually abuse a minor are not likely to be significantly higher than other males in or out of the clergy. Of course we expect better behavior from priests than from the average man on the street. While even one priest who abuses children is a major problem, we need to keep this issue in perspective and remember that the vast majority of priests do not abuse children."

"...Almost all the cases coming to light today are cases from 30 and 40 years ago. We did not know much about pedophilia and sexual abuse in general back then. In fact, the vast majority of the research on sexual abuse of minors didn't emerge until the early 1980's. So, it appeared reasonable at the time to treat these men and then return them to their priestly duties. In hindsight, this was a tragic mistake. It has been estimated that 40 years ago about 23% of male psychotherapists have been sexually involved with their clients. Of course this is no longer true today. Forty years ago we thought that autism was caused by cold and withholding mothers referred to as the "ice box mother." We can't take what we know in 2010 and apply it to problems and decisions made in the 1960's and 1970's.

Furthermore, 40 years ago, most priests entered seminary during high school, did not participate in a comprehensive psychological evaluation prior to admission, and had no training in sexuality, maintaining professional boundaries, and impulse control. Advice regarding dealing with sexual impulses included cold showers and prayer. Today, most applicants to the priesthood are much older (generally in their late 20's or 30's). They often have had satisfying and appropriate intimate relationships before entering the seminary. They have completed a psychological evaluation that specifically examines risk factors for sexual problems. They now get good training in sexuality and issues related to managing sexual impulses. It is not surprising that the majority of the sex-offending priests that we hear about in the press are older. In fact, our research indicates that the average age of these men are 53."

Horrific as the abuse was, the same percentages exist across all religious denominations. I won't even discuss the abuse that goes on in the classroom, at much higher percentages than the Church.

Besides, what does this have to do with Santorum's right to free speech?