Posted on 02/26/2012 11:51:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The Church is a voluntary organization. Why should it not have an hand in the operation of the state? The idea that the leaders of the Church , clerical or lay, are disqualified from participation in public affairs is a radical liberal or a socialist idea. How you can get this from the language of Article VI or from the First Amendment is a mystery to me. Religious people and non-relgious have the same standing: they are citizens of the United States.
Kennedy’s world doesn’t exist so how do you know you believe in it?
You have catholic bishops upset at the president for this latest. They have that right. There were black Christian ministers marching against the government policies back in the 60s, gee, what was that one guy’s name?? There a a few different (very different!) Jewish American lobbies who have tried and influenced policy.
Kennedy would have been ok with religions having redress. He was only trying to bend over backwards to insist Rome wouldn’t drive his governing.
Heck, he didn’t even let the 10 commandments influence him much.
He can throw up because of what has transpired since then has made Kennedy’s speech something to be thrown into the face of religious people. Separation of Church sand state are absolute? Then why the twists and turns by the Supreme Court as they have tried to honor Black’s interpretation of the First Amendment while dealing with the lack of separation between Church and American society? Black was a kluxer, a rapid hater of the Catholic Church, and he aimed right then and there to deny federal funding for the Catholic parochial schools, at a time when the Church was standing on the precedent of the GI Bill which allowed federal money to send a veteran to a Catholic college, but denied him the right to claim aid to send his six year old son to a private Catholic parochical school — the 1947 equivalent of vouchers.
I don't know a single Republican that would argue that religious people, leaders or clerics should be banned from participation in public affairs. We ALL encourage it.
However Santorum's own words say he is an advocate for "the church" (read: Institutions) should have a role in the OPERATION of the government.
No, our Founding Fathers put an end to that nonsense over 200 years ago.
Please address that issue.
Exactly. Why should environmentalists, who live it as a way of life as much as any religious person, or communists, or Planned Parenthood, etc, have the option to have a say, but Mormons, Buddhists, Christians, etc. Do not?
Santorum does not want a theocracy. He probably meant in the operation of our government the way all people and entities here do, through lobbying.
There are plenty of much bigger, more relevant things to go after.
I am only taking the words for what they say.
However, if he meant something else and mis-spoke, I hope he will clear that up right away. Soonest. Today.
“Santorum needs to be more judicious in how he expresses himself...”
You’d think, wouldn’t you? I think that at times, too. But it seems to be working for him. (It may not be as acceptable in a general election, though.)
This country is going to hell in a hand basket and all you and your candidate can obsess over, are these ridiculous, petulant social issues that don't make an ounce of difference on how we are going to save this country from utter, Economic ruin. “It's the economy stupid!”
I am sure you are making a valid point...however
If these things are what Senator Santorum was referring to, that’s what he ahould have said.
Dead on the money Lurk. The prevailing feeling from quite a few voters in the run up to the primaries and general was that if JFK won the White House.....the Pope would be then calling the shots on everything for at least 4 years. Dumb and wrong I agree, but that is how it was.
What I find freaky about religion and the 2012 primary, is that if a Catholic Bishop, especially one believed to be destined to become a Cardinal or possibly Pope after his Presidency, were running for the GOP nomination, he and his church would come under deep scrutiny.
Bishop Romney is that guy.
As a Bishop and then a Stake President, Bishop Romney is expected to ascend higher in the Mormon church to at least the level of Cardinal, and possibly to the position of Prophet or Pope, as his uncle was in line to be when death claimed him. Mitt is also the son of a Bishop and is believed by many Mormons to be the fulfillment of the White Horse Prophecy.
That’s an excellent point.
Of course, it may come up during the general if Mitt gets the nomination.
This whole string is based on a misunderstanding. JFK had no “church” to separate from the state. He was a Catholic in name only. He was not a papist lackey but instead a typical amoral liberal secularist who worshiped power more than God.
JFK spent more time cheating on his wife than observing his faith. He jeopardized the security of his nation by consorting with a gangster moll and East German spy. Most recently, we learned that he took advantage of a 19-year old intern and forced her to perform oral sex on an aide.
There seems to be a continuing misunderstanding as to what the term Separation of Church and State means.
It refers strictly to having a religion run and endorsed by the State and nothing more.
Everything else that has been interpreted by the media, the ACLU and the Courts is to a great extent wrong.
Regardless of what Santorum meant, or what the Establishment Clause means it is a political blunder. Rick opens his mouth, and instead of spending a week talking about things Obama is vulnerable on (jobs, growth, debt, gas prices) the media is going to go on a week long tangent about the separation of church and state. Just like they did with the Satan comment and the contraception comment.
They are not so disqualified.
Back in the seventies, you may recall, there were two priests serving in the House, Father Robert F. Drinan, of Massachusetts, and Father Robert J. Cornell, of Wisconsin. Both were Democrats. Both retired from Congress when John Paul II ordered that priests withdraw from electoral politics.
Priests serving in Congress, however, is not the same as the Church having a hand in the operation of the state.
When Father Drinan passed on, the ADL had this to say:
New York, NY, January 29, 2007 … Anti-Defamation League (ADL) leaders, Glen S. Lewy, National Chair and Abraham H. Foxman, National Director, issued the following statement:
The death of Father Robert Drinan is a loss not only to his family, friends, and the Catholic community, but to the Jewish community and, indeed, all Americans and people of good will the world over. He was a unique individual whose devotion to his Catholic teachings led him to speak out for social justice, peace, and respect and understanding.Father Drinan was especially respected and beloved by the Jewish community for his advocacy on behalf of Soviet Jewry, the State of Israel and America's democratic values. In May 2000 he spoke eloquently at an ADL rally in Washington on religious liberty and the importance of maintaining the separation of church and state.
Whether in church, in Congress or in the classroom, Father Drinan was a moral, passionate and compassionate voice for doing the right thing. We will miss his gentle soul, but take comfort that his legacy lives on.
It's not clear that forced
is the proper word. Writes Mimi Alford:
Some evenings, we’d have drinks with Dave Powers, with whom I developed a close friendship.Since neither of them could believe I wasn’t the object of universal pursuit, they were always teasing me about boyfriends. Dave, I felt, had an avuncular interest in making sure I didn’t get hurt. Of course, now I realise that he wasn’t taking care of me at all; he was taking care of the President.
Still, we were a good trio. Or we were, until a callous and unforgiveable incident threatened to destroy our ease in each other’s company.
The President and I were in the pool, splashing playfully, while Dave Powers was sitting on the edge, with his feet dangling in the water. Then JFK swam over and whispered in my ear: ‘Mr Powers looks a little tense — would you take care of it?’
I knew exactly what that meant: it was a dare to give Dave Powers oral sex.
I don’t think the President thought I’d do it, but I’m ashamed to say that I did. It was a pathetic, sordid scene, and I can hardly bear to think about it. Dave was jolly and obedient as I stood in the shallow end of the pool and performed my duties. The President silently watched.
Correct.....but most of the facts you mention were not known about JFK by the general voting American public, (others in the know, and the liberal press, kept all of his garbage hushed up of course), in the time frame I spoke of. Also, my post was directed towards what millions of American voters thought was going to happen, in regards to the Vatican, if he were elected, not who he really was. I know what he really was. We all do.....now.
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.