Posted on 02/26/2012 11:51:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind
That's a DIRECT QUOTE from Santorum. If it's proven factual it's damning.
Santorum is not talking about religious people OR candidates expressing themselves in the public square, or about equal access to the public square.
Santorum is directly and clearly advocating for "the Church" to have a role "in the operation of the state".
And if he thinks that is the original intent of the Constitution he is ignorant in addition to being dangerous to liberty and people.
Sorry, but you are wrong. JFK privatized his religion in order to get elected. No one else has to check his beliefs or religion at the door in order to get elected. Christians and Catholics have just as much much a right to enter the public square with beliefs influencing their actions and policies as do Muslims and Feminists and Dog-Lovers.
FReepers should know that “separation of church and state” is itself false. Non-Establishment of Religion combined with free expression of religion is what the Constitution says.
No one is talking about establishing Catholicism as the state religion. No one was at the time JFK ran. He had to make the speech because of bigotry—the claim that a Catholic, unlike an Episcopalian or Baptist or Hindu, would try to create an established religion. He was answering the “so, have you stopped beating your wife” question. He should not have even deigned to answer it, but, of course, bigotry pushed him to do it.
But his answer was a betrayal of his supposed Catholic faith just as a Baptist who said that his faith would not influence his public life is betraying his faith.
And now, even on FR, Santorum is getting the “have you stopped beating your wife” anti-Catholic treatment.
I am guessing it happened after 1988? or 1989?
“When I first ran for Congress I was kind of an agnostic. I was a single male and not really interested in the issue, didn’t really care. I was Catholic, but I had never really taken a public position on it.”
Rick is not being naive or mistaking the implications of what JFK said. I love this man for his straight talk. Go Rick, drive the libs crazy!
Santorum advocated directly and clearly for "the Church" to have "a role in the operation of the government".
Do you agree with Santorum's statement?
Factual? That horse has left the gate, and he's in a gallop clockwise round the track.
Totally false. Some of the founders opposed an official state religion. Some favored established religion.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself. In your zeal to defeat Santorum you are mouthing the worst “separation of church and state crap” that’s come from liberal judges over the last 50 years and well nigh destroyed our body politic.
So you don’t like Santorum. Fine, to each his own. But for FReepers to be joining with our worst secularist enemies just in order to damage the primary candidate they oppose is absurd.
Santorum is absolutely right on this point. Religious people and religious views and, yes, organized religion, has a place in the public square. Chaplains in the army, prayer breakfasts on Capitol Hill, faith-based-initiatives today; back in the Founders’ day the churches had much more involvement in government at all levels, initially, as established official churches in some states, even after the 1st Amendment, as publicly religious actors in government at all levels.
You are the bigot.
And “influence” and “involvement” are perfectly constitutional.
You are shredding the free exercise clause in your zeal to damn Santorum.
Every American,of whatever creed, has just as much right as any other American to bring his religion with him as he influences and involves himself in government, beginning with voting.
He must do so within the laws, of course. But you are trying to silence religious “influence and involvement” in the public square.
You are a dangerous Constitution-shredder, just as bad as the judges who overturned the California vote on homosexual “marriage.”
What part of “free exercise” clause don’t you get?
Or, to mix metaphors, Santorum bought the shark.
Influence and involvement are perfectly legitimate exercises of one’s religious, feminist, libertarian, or whatever beliefs. To ask a legislator, governor, bureaucrat, or clerk not to live out of his religious or political beliefs is to deny him his First Amendment rights.
He must do so within the law, of course. But to employ one’s beliefs to influence the making of laws or one’s execution of the laws is perfectly legitimate as long as one does not violate the laws.
Why should religious beliefs be checked at the door but other beliefs not be checked at the door.
What
part
of
“free
exercise
of
religion
don’t
you
get?
Does the First Amendment say that free exercise of religion is limited to one’s private life?
No.
The worst Constitution-busting judges of the past 100 years have tried to relegate all religion to the private sphere (no prayer in school etc.). That is evil and unconstitutional. And you are lining up with them. I never thought I’d see this kind of crap on FR.
Hate Santorum if you must, but for God’s sake, don’t throw the free exercise of religion clause out the window just to get at Santorum.
BUMP!
“Religious people and religious views and, yes, organized religion, has a place in the public square.”
Unless I read it wrong Santorum said that organized religion had a role to play in the operation of the government.
What Santorum said was, 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.
What JFK said was:
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.
I'm afraid I agree with Kennedy on that. I don't want Catholic prelates or Protestant ministers (or Islamic mullahs) operating the state.
If Kennedy's words on that make you want to throw up, then perhaps you belong in Saudi Arabia.
Every thinking person agrees with that statement. But you are not addressing what Santorum actually SAID.
He said he he found it antithetical that the Founders intended that "the church" should "have a role in the OPERATION of the state".
Do you agree with that?
Why not address what Santorum actually SAID rather than what you wish he had said.
No sir, if you agree with that statement you are the one that ought to be ashamed.
Santorum is advocating for the Church to have a role in the operation of government.
That is a very serious issue. And it DEFINITELY is counter to both the word and intent of the Constitution.
At present, in an effort to sound like a tough scrapper amongst the GOP field he is not using wisely chosen words and phrases to get his points and ideas across ....... If he indeed wins the nomination, in his zeal he is clumsily giving the opposition a vast library of soundbites that will put him on a perpetual track of defense until the November election.
It is my belief that the current president will need to do nothing else but deflect any conversation about actual issues while at the same time using his usual tactic of demonizing the GOP and blaming them for everything under the sun for using their tired and worn ideas to destroy this country ... then sitting back and watch the GOP tear itself apart ...... and then during the final couple of months preceding the election..... the Democrat nominee will take hundreds of millions of dollars and literally saturate the media with accusations against the GOP nominee which will force the GOP nominee to spend most of its funds in defensive advertising and preventing them from actually discussing genuine issues facing this country.
I agree that perhaps the intent of the JFK speech was probably misconstrued by Senator Santorum.
Someone upthread as kind enough to post a replay of the speech and I found no throw up moments in it. It appeared to be an assurance that no president should accept direction from the Pope or any other religious figure in his presidency that might supercede the constitutional requirements of the office. Nor should any candidate for president be judged by their faith.
I really think Senator Santorum was trying to say that faith had influence on decision making, which of course it does. But he didn’t say it very well (and should have left out the “made me throw up” stuff).
Whatever the case, his statements could be turned and twisted and excerpted to his detriment. There is no reason to give your enemy ammunition. jmho
I fear your prediction of the tactics that the Dems will use during the general election are accurate...sigh.
This election year is turning into a disaster. We now have a candidate, who at the moment is the frontrunner, that sounds like a Carlist during 1930’s Spain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.