Posted on 02/28/2012 8:14:16 PM PST by Mariner
There’s a tiny priest living in Rick Santorum’s trim, toned body, struggling to get out. The rogue priest escaped Sunday and said foolish things.
The candidate most admired for plain speech made it plain and clear that he doesn’t believe in the wall between church and state and doesn’t think much of John F. Kennedy for saying he did.
“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” he told ABC News. “The idea that church can have no influence or involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Oh please
First off there is no such thing as “wall of separation between church and state” in the Constitution.
The freedom of religion does not ban religious persons from holding office.
He is over 35 and a US citizen, he is Constitutionally eligible to be President.
The thing is to keep government out of the church and that has been violated for decades.
Santorum mentioned influence over the operation of the state. Did he REALLY say operation of the state? Influence over, and operation of, are two different things.
There are some functions that are called state functions now but they shouldn’t be state functions (education, adoption, healthcare etc.) It is only in that context that a church would “operate” the state.
Don’t buy into radical separation of church and state - the endgame is the Soviet Union if you do.
Nope. You missed one. "The People."
And "the people" have very definite opinions that are formed and informed by the church of their choice.
Your assertion is as silly and self serving as the meme that only women can judge women where circumstances are unique to women, or that only veterans are allowed to have any say on what military operations are appropriate.
Here’s a pretty good summary re the so-called `wall of separation.’ http://www.firebuilders.org/JAmJeff.htm
In the next several months, building to (disappointing, we can only hope) crescendo, we can expect to read about one African-American church minister after another plugging Obama.
And on Jefferson’s tombstone: “Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom and Father of the University of Virginia.”
By “religious freedom,” he meant `freedom from’ as well as `freedom of.’
I am a huge Santorum fan but like Sarah palin before him, he has to know that bold social statements will be turned into spun tweets and late night bits ad infinitum.
Senator, please, THINK before you say things. I’ve agreed with every word you’ve said, but Joe Q Public doesn’t understand you and gets it wrong every time. I never knew I could cheer and grimace at the same time, but every newsworthy line you’ve said, I cheer inwardly and grimace outwardly.
Anything out of the mainstream has to be patiently explained BEFORE you say it. Sorry, but it’s true. Throwing up at Kennedy?? Didn’t you THINK people would then say that Michigan is throwing up rather than vote for you, etc.? Don’t feed the beast so much. Be you, but save some of this stuff until you Get the bully pulpit.
I am so sorry you didn’t knock Romney out in MI tonight.
His "bona fides" don't have a thing to do with evaluating what he wrote.
I don't care if Neal Armstrong says the moon is made of green cheese. I know he's wrong just by what he said.
Now we know why the Washington Times never sold many papers
The Constitution limits the federal government...nothing else. It simply states that the federal government cannot establish an official church.
>> I listened to his speech tonight and thought it was exceptional.
Regardless of his hoarse voice, he sounds like Obama with the breathy supplication.
Then he has to ask himself if there are enough stupid people out there to make the spin determinative.
I like his obvious answer to that question better than yours.
You are without a doubt the worst statist I have ever seen on FR.
Kennedy made it clear that his religious convictions would be walled apart from his political practice.
It is the same argument made by Catholic politicians today when they support laws at variance with their church’s teachings. It was the same argument used by Jesuit priest/congressman Robert Drinan when he lent all his support for abortion.
I used to like what Wes Pruden wrote, but not any more.
Sooner or later, it seems that everyone shows who they really are.
Santorum’s speech simply repeats the standard positions I’ve heard for many years in conservative evangelical Christian circles. Frankly, when I read speeches like this, I’m more pleased than annoyed by Santorum.
That’s also true about his criticism of higher education which generated a similar article attacking him this week in the New York Times. The only thing I find surprising is that I’m not used to hearing Roman Catholics talk this way. Maybe I need to spend more time paying attention to politically active conservative Catholic intellectuals; Santorum didn’t come up with this on his own and he probably didn’t get this worldview exclusively or even primarily from the Protestant evangelical community.
Unlike the New York Times, I expect the Washington Times and its senior management and emeritus management to understand conservative Christian views.
Pruden is a legitimate conservative leader. I find it difficult to believe he doesn’t know better, but perhaps he’s spent so much time in the secular conservative environment of Washington that “red meat” conservative Christians.
Typo deletion: “Pruden is a legitimate conservative leader. I find it difficult to believe he doesn’t know better, but perhaps he’s spent so much time in the secular conservative environment of Washington that “red meat” conservative Christians (ADD) are not what he’s used to hearing.”
"“The idea that church can have no influence or involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.”
A direct quote from the article and I saw him say it myself on youtube. This last weekend.
"involvement in the operation of the state".
The people have no role in the operation of the state.
They elect representatives to operate the state.
The people have no direct power other than the vote the ability to sit as a juror.
Nowhere does the constitution allow for any other INSTITUTION to have a role and Santorum's words clearly advocate for that.
That is a green light to Muslims.
“The Church should be able to do whatever it wants. The constitution only constrains the state.”
Amen! A church that cannot challenge the state is a church subservient to the state.
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.