Santorum: "I don't believe in the separation of church and state"

[rumborak]

https://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-26/santorum-says-separation-of-church-and-state-isn-t-absolute.html

Theocracy here we come...

rumborak

[Chino]

Fuck Santorum. I hate everything that man stands for.

[Nick]

There are plenty of good reasons to keep church theology out of politics. That said the constitution isn't one of them. The first amendment was to ensure the US didn't adopt a church or churches because of how many people were escaping those types of situations to come to America.

[orcus116]

He is the only candidate that genuinely creeps me out.

[7StringedBeast]

I seriously don't understand how he's gotten as far as he has.  The guy is fucking insane.

[j]

He's way too polarizing.  He's been riding the wave over the past few weeks, but Romney will still get the GOP nod.

-J

[Riceball]

 

[Fiery Winds]

I'm not saying there aren't plenty of reasons to dislike Santorum, but is this particular issue that egregious?  I'm all for the separation of church having authority over the state and vice versa, but I don't think that's what Santorum is addressing.  Rather, he's making an observation that faith has become absent in politics entirely. 

I'm sure most of you know that the same Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase "separation of church and state" was the same Jefferson who attended church services in the House of Representatives (which were non-discriminatory and voluntary).  As far as I read the Constitution, as long as the state does not enact a law that prohibits the free exercise of ANY religion, it's individual members should not be prohibited from sharing their faith in public. 

It makes no difference to me whether someone says their values are based on the Quran, the Bible, or the Doctrine of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Let them share whatever beliefs they want, I don't care.  In the end, the voting public still decides whether to hand over (or take away) the power.

[hefdaddy42]

Rather, he's making an observation that faith has become absent in politics entirely. 

It's a false observation.  Between his Catholicism, Romney's Mormonism, Obama's supposedly being a closet Muslim, and the general focus on the religious right since we are in GOP primary season, religion has become ever-present lately.

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

Santorum's idea of "church" needs to stay out of everything.

[skydivingninja]

If Santorum somehow gets the GOP nomination I will actively campaign for Barack Obama.  I will go door-to-door because there's no way that Santorum could possibly be an improvement. 

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

The longer this guy gets in front of the country and runs his mouth, the more ridiculous he gets.  I'm starting to believe he's being paid by Obama supporters to say all this stuff.  He's flat out writing his opponents' attack ads FOR them.  It is beyond my ability to comprehend how somebody would say the things he's been saying and hope to actually get elected.

[rumborak]

Way more disturbing are the people who apparently see Romney's Mormonism a greater affront than Santorum theocratic musings.

rumborak

[Chino]

The longer this guy gets in front of the country and runs his mouth, the more ridiculous he gets.  I'm starting to believe he's being paid by Obama supporters to say all this stuff.  He's flat out writing his opponents' attack ads FOR them.  It is beyond my ability to comprehend how somebody would say the things he's been saying and hope to actually get elected.

He can say anything he want and the people who share his beliefs will still vote for him. It disgusts me how much an intangible deity can influence people's decisions when it comes to our tangible world.

[snapple]

Preface to the question: I can't stand Santorum. I am in no way, shape, or form defending him.

Question:

Why is it okay that some of these posts are "he's fucking insane" and "Fuck Santorum"? I'm not taking a shot at the posters in general (you're all great posters) but these feel a little out of place for a forum like this. I like to read these threads (and occasionally post) because the quality of posting tends to be better. rumborak brought up a good topic and a few posts just brought a potential discussion down in a click of a button. As much as I can't stand Obama/Democrats in general, I try to at least not to post "Fuck Obama" and "he's a fucking Socialist" regardless of what I actually think.

On topic:

As a conservative, Santorum scares me as a candidate. My heart and gut is conservative, but my mind knows reality is more moderate.

[bosk1]

To actually quote the article, here is what he said:

“I don’t believe that the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said in an interview today on ABC’s “This Week” program. “The First Amendment means the free exercise of religion and that means bringing people and their faith into the public square.”
Santorum, 53, made the comments in an interview from Michigan, where he is campaigning ahead of the Republican primary this week. Polls show a close race there against Mitt Romney who spent his boyhood in the state and where his father, George Romney, served as governor and an automobile company chief executive officer.
Santorum said Kennedy’s 1960 speech in Houston about the separation of church and state, was an “absolutist doctrine” that he disagrees with.
“To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? What makes me throw up is someone who is now trying to tell people that you will do what the government says,” Santorum said. “That now we’re going to turn around and impose our values from the government on people of faith.”
Santorum said “there are people I disagree with. Come into our town hall meetings and let’s have a discussion. Air your ideas and why you believe what you believe.”
“That’s what America is all about -- bringing in that diversity,” the former Pennsylvania senator said. “What we saw in Kennedy’s speech was just the opposite and that’s what’s so upsetting about it.”

I find nothing wrong with any of that whatsoever.

[bosk1]

And this:

Question:

Why is it okay that some of these posts are "he's fucking insane" and "Fuck Santorum"? I'm not taking a shot at the posters in general (you're all great posters) but these feel a little out of place for a forum like this. I like to read these threads (and occasionally post) because the quality of posting tends to be better.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Maybe I'm way off, but I feel like "freedom of religion" includes the notion of freedom from religion.  I do not at all agree with Santorum's viewpoint on some things, as much right as he has to believe them.  The thought that he or anybody else may want to make it so that their beliefs become law is scary.

[bosk1]

The thought that he or anybody else may want to make it so that their beliefs become law is scary.

And that is precisely why I actually quoted the article in this thread, because he says nothing of the sort.  And he has said in other contexts that he specifically does NOT believe it is right to legislate that way.  He strongly believes it is appropriate for people, whether in government or not, to be able to openly have discourse about what they believe, but not that those beliefs should necessarily be legislated.  That is a subtle, yet very important distinction.

[antigoon]

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 and it should make every American…Now we’re going to turn around and say we’re going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square.

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 foreign at the time of 1960.

"Only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case"? What the actual fuck is he even talking about?

Here's what Kennedy actually said

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

What exactly is wrong with this?

[rumborak]

Why is it not enough for public leaders to simply be internally lead by their religious beliefs? By openly discussing them as a leader, you are inevitably favoring your particular religion. I can only mention that if a Muslim politician had made the same statement in this country, there would be battle cries across the nations from Christians.

rumborak

[snapple]

Why is it not enough for public leaders to simply be internally lead by their religious beliefs? By openly discussing them as a leader, you are inevitably favoring your particular religion. I can only mention that if a Muslim politician had made the same statement in this country, there would be battle cries across the nations from Christians.

rumborak

You're absolutely right. I can't really add to that. But, you're right.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

And that is precisely why I actually quoted the article in this thread, because he says nothing of the sort.

I didn't mean to indicate that I actually thought he'd said that.  Just outing my thoughts on the idea.  Undoubtedly there are some who would have no issues with mandating their beliefs.  Some would argue that the gay marriage ban falls into that category, though that's a discussion for a different thread.

Also, if Santorum is so keen on the free expression of religious groups, I truly do wonder what would happen if an Islamic group chose to have a big meeting to pray towards Mecca.  Within 1 mile of the WTC.  I question what his stance would be, out of genuine curiosity.  If he denounced it, it would certain come across as kind of hypocritical, but if he didn't, then there's the possibility of losing some favor with his party.

EDIT:  Kinda in the same ball park as what rumborak said, I guess.

[rumborak]

I think one must be almost dense to not see that Santorum is plain trying to establish two tiers of religion, the "American" one (Christianity) and the non-American one.

rumborak

[Cool Chris]

I would never vote for him, but I give him credit for one thing: I know what he believes in and stands for, and think he truly believes in what he says. I can’t say that about many politicians. People like Newt say some pretty wacky things, but I never know if they actually believe them, or are just saying them for the benefit of his particular audience at the time. 

[rumborak]

I can see that, but the opposite argument could be made that he simply mis-estimates what the public wants to hear.

rumborak

[antigoon]

And besides, I remember hearing from multiple sources that he was a terribly corrupt senator. Also, if you actually read that JFK quote, what Santorum said about it was a blatant misrepresentation.

[hefdaddy42]

if you actually read that JFK quote, what Santorum said about it was a blatant misrepresentation.

This, what a goof.

[kirksnosehair]

I think both sides need to just take a deep breath.  Santorum says a lot of stuff that's really off the cuff, shooting from the hip, and let's all remember this is the Republican primaries right now.  He and everyone else running on the right is playing to the base of the Republican party.  The Republicans are going to nominate Romney.  And he'll give Obama a pretty decent challenge.  Santorum would lose in a landslide and my friends on the conservative side of the aisle, I suspect, know this deep down. 

[King Postwhore]

Way more disturbing are the people who apparently see Romney's Mormonism a greater affront than Santorum theocratic musings.

rumborak

Amen (pun intended) to this!  It makes no sense to me what a persons type of religion an elected official is.  I care about his body of work.

[Chino]

Way more disturbing are the people who apparently see Romney's Mormonism a greater affront than Santorum theocratic musings.

rumborak

Amen (pun intended) to this!  It makes no sense to me what a persons type of religion an elected official is.  I care about his body of work.

This. Even as an athiest, I could care less what the person running believes in, as long as they don't show people who believe what they do favoritism or belittle beliefs other than their own. I do have a problem however when a candidate's beliefs get in the way of cold hard truth. For example, Santorum's views on contraceptives and abstinence. He thinks that getting rid of contraceptives and focussing more on abstinence is what is needed to prevent teen pregnancy. Looking at a human being as a product of nature and evolution, and not as a special product of a god, will make you realize how wrong his views on the matter are. Out of all of our instincts, the one that drives us the most is the urge to reproduce. He is trying to surpress millions of years of evolution that have told us to do one thing, and one thing only, fuck. I'm not saying abstinence is bullshit, what I'm saying is that they way country seems to approach is way off of what is today's reality. We should be teaching kids as young as 7 about the male and female bodies, and explain how sex and getting pregnant works. I don't see what the big deal about exposing young children to that is. At least that way, once teens begin to hit puberty, they will be educated. And while they will probably still have sex, maybe they will be more respectful when it comes to the power it holds. Hopefully they'd be more wise and make better decisions when doing the act. The big difference I see between Obama and the current republican candidates, is that Obama seems in touch with how the world is today, as opposed to MR, NG, and RS who's mentallity seems to still be in the 1950's. The world is a different place than is was then, and it's time we make changes to the way we teach youngsters and how we handle current trends in every day life.

Santorum's comment today was one of the worst things I have heard so far in this race. "We went into a recession in 2008 because of gasoline prices. The bubble burst in housing because people couldn't pay their mortgages because they were looking at $4 a gallon gasoline." His failure to come out and say anything about the banks being irresponsible, lack of government regulation, or the greed of a handful of people, just proves what a moron the guy really is. I understand gas prices are a hot topic right now, but using them in this light just makes him look like a fucking retard.

[Fiery Winds]

This. Even as an athiest, I could care less what the person running believes in, as long as they don't show people who believe what they do favoritism or belittle beliefs other than their own. I do have a problem however when a candidate's beliefs get in the way of cold hard truth. For example, Santorum's views on contraceptives and abstinence. He thinks that getting rid of contraceptives and focussing more on abstinence is what is needed to prevent teen pregnancy. Looking at a human being as a product of nature and evolution, and not as a special product of a god, will make you realize how wrong his views on the matter are.

Just pointing out a logical inconsistency.  His views are different than yours, but that doesn't mean he's "wrong".  If you won't vote for someone because he has different beliefs, more power to you, but I think it's all too easy (and counterproductive) to play the right vs. wrong game.

[bosk1]

YOUR WRONG!

[Adami]

YOUR WRONG!

His wrong what?

[Fiery Winds]

YOUR YOU'RE WRONG!

Just pointing out a grammatical inconsistency.