PRUDEN: The ignorance of Rick Santorum

The Washington Times ^ | February 28, 2012 | Wesley Pruden

[Mariner]

"The problem is in the use of the word "church" rather then "religion or faith". .. "church" suggests a particular, organized ecclesiastic body."

That is ABSOLUTELY the issue.

If Santorum meant something besides what his words clearly said then I hope I will hear him issue correction.

[Mariner]

"Thus the Congressional Chaplain is unconstitutional. Military chaplains likewise unconstitutional. Input from the public square by people of faith unconstitutional. Priests, Pastors and Rabbis in Congress unconstitutional. "

Those people have no role in the operation of the government.

[gusty]

Then remember that the hole in that wall is not one way. You take the states money, you dance to the states tune. Some of those institutions are finding that out now.

[jwalsh07]

Absolutely which is why I don’t like my church taking government money but not liking it and being unconstitutional are two different matters.

[robowombat]

Pruden is, or was, a pretty notorious lecher and dissapator. When he became editor of the Wash Times he purged anumber of religious conservatives. He really dislikes any religiously oriented person or even those who have a strong moral code. Obviously such people make him nervous as he knows his personal conduct has often been disgraceful. He intensely dislikes Santorum for the above reasons and has been waiting for an opportunity to engage in a back stab disguised as opposition to Santorum’s take on the Establishment Clause. Pruden is crap and he is trying to slime a decent man because of his own inner conflicts.

[jwalsh07]

Those people have no role in the operation of the government.

So a Congressman who happens to be na priest has no operational role in government? Soldiers are not governmentr operators either? You need to look up the word operate pal. Once again this is not what Santorum meant but I'm going to make you eat your nastiness anyway. Do special operators perform functions for the government or are all grunts mercs? Keep in mind pe3rforming a function is the definition of operate.

[Mariner]

"So a Congressman who happens to be na priest has no operational role in government?"

No, I think it's not only OK, but desirable to have Priests and Ministers in government office and jobs.

I just don't believe any CHURCH should have a role or office.

[robowombat]

Madison did want to have none of these. Not because he was a crypto-free thinker, as atheists were then called, but because he firmly believed contact between government and religious institutions inevitably led to the corruption and debasement of religion and attempt by government to use religion for secular ends.

[Mariner]

"Keep in mind pe3rforming a function is the definition of operate. "

Our constitution specifies the offices of the federal government and their respective powers.

Nowhere is any church mentioned.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Bullsh!t...That makes your statement patently false.

The Constitution DOES NOT control churches.

[Mariner]

"The Constitution DOES NOT control churches."

I agree completely.

[AmericanInTokyo]

IT(Pruden) smelled as much.

Thanks for giving us the dope on this beltway insider and his prejudices.

[gusty]

Unconstitutional may not be the right word for it. However, religious institutions who contract with the government will have to play by the rules non-religious institutions have to. What I’m saying is those specific charities cannot stake a special status as religious institutions when they take the states money. For example, if St. Mary’s Hospital and U of Maryland Medical Center(names are made up) both contract with the government, then both have to comply with the governments dictates the same. Thus St. Mary’s Hospital cannot claim its immune to the states dictates because its a religious institution. In the latest controversy, the employees of the St. Mary’s Hospital have to comply to Obamacare like the rest of us. The employees of St. Mary’s Church down the street can claim the exception. Now if St. Mary’s Hospital steered clear of government money, and funded its operation on donations and patient fees, then they can claim the exception.

[Mariner]

And Jefferson was even more derisive of organized religion.

Gee, the author of the Declaration and the author of the Constitution were in agreement to exclude churches from the operation of government.

[gusty]

And that is why Baptists and other evangelicals at the time were strong supporters of the Jeffersonian Party at the time. They saw how the established church ran roughshod over their rights in Colonial times. It wasn't theoretical to them, it was their reality.

[Nifster]

I believe that Like Pruden you purposefully misunderstand what was said. Santorum did not say that the church (pick which flavor of Christianity or believe you want) should set the policy or make the laws. What he said was he though that churches and people of faith should be able to openly influence what goes on in government. ow if you say nonsense then I ask where do you stand on DOMA or abortion or the death penalty or any number oof other issues that clearly have a faith basis for existing.

[xzins]

“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.”

Santorum, of course, is right.

The Church influences people, and those people are involved in the operation of the state.

Saying that Christians are not allowed to work in government jobs is antithetical to freedom in America.

In fact, the Constitution itself says there can be no religious test.

[Nifster]

Incorrect here is what he said

““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”

Now I have a question, can a pastor run for office? If elected can he (or she) serve? Under you absolutism the answer is no. As a person of faith I am a member if a church and I carry that with me wherever I go. As such if serving n government I would be having the church involved in government.

[robowombat]

Yes, from my limited knowledge, Madison seems to be a conventional but convinced believer who wished to protect religion from the corruption of the throne and alter relationship and keep government from having the use of religious sanctions as a coercive measure. The serious determination by the Founders to provide a structure of government that could govern while trying to contrive every possible barrier to government becoming the tool of tyranny is impressive and makes the statists of today look like the evil pygmies they are.

[Yaelle]

I agree with every “controversial” thing santo has said. And I’ve longed for someone in the public sphere to dare say this stuff. But it seems he’s too in your face and sends the next one out before the liberal press has finished chewing on the first one, and each comment becomes a trite liberal soundbite against him, and it all only helps Romney.

A candidate’s conservatism has to be SOMEWHAT digestible. It has to be properly explained. If the average American understood it, he’d agree. But he is only hearing the extreme spin, the Saintorum, the late night comedy jokes.