Santorum: Separation of Church and State Not Absolute

Christian Post ^ | 02/27/2012 | By Napp Nazworth

[BuckeyeTexan]

That’s an election-losing comment from Santorum.

[DannyTN]

Margarite Thatcher pretty much said the same thing. Something about all of the west’s sense of morality and rights were rooted in Christianity.

[massgopguy]

Last September my Knights of Columbus Council sponsored a 10th Anniversary Day of Remembrance at our Parish. After ceremonies at the two city halls of the cities we serve. Dignitaries held a Procession to our Parish for a Blue Mass and a Pancake Breakfast for 1st responders. You guessed it. A local Rabbi complained that this was a violation of the “Separation of Church and State”. Both city halls responded that the Blue Mass is a KOC tradition of supporting Fire and Police departments and were INVITED by the council. It was suggested that if the Rabbi wanted to participate by having a portion of the day at his Synagogue the city would be glad to attend. It was also part of an overall Day of Remembrance in which other groups sponsored other events during the day.

[massgopguy]

Last September my Knights of Columbus Council sponsored a 10th Anniversary Day of Remembrance at our Parish. After ceremonies at the two city halls of the cities we serve. Dignitaries held a Procession to our Parish for a Blue Mass and a Pancake Breakfast for 1st responders. You guessed it. A local Rabbi complained that this was a violation of the “Separation of Church and State”. Both city halls responded that the Blue Mass is a KOC tradition of supporting Fire and Police departments and were INVITED by the council. It was suggested that if the Rabbi wanted to participate by having a portion of the day at his Synagogue the city would be glad to attend. It was also part of an overall Day of Remembrance in which other groups sponsored other events during the day.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: That’s an election-losing comment from Santorum.

Only if people choose to misunderstand what he means.

[DannyTN]

Margarite Thatcher pretty much said the same thing. Something about all of the west’s sense of morality and rights were rooted in Christianity.

But if y’all want sodomy, polygamy and beastiality, then go ahead and insist on a strict separation. And let the liberal judges decide the issue.

[Utmost Certainty]

Nobody wants sodomy, polygamy, bestiality, etc.

But it isn’t the business of government to make people morally upright. It has to come from individuals and communities themselves to instill and regulate good behavior.

[Sacajaweau]

IIRC, it was about his personal religion and his presidential role.

Was he right? Let's be real...

the guy was a male *****, mamma was a gold digger, daddy was a runner, bro couldn't save Mary Jo, auntie was an alcoholic, cousin was a rapist.......

There was a BIG separation!!!

[SeekAndFind]

RE: But it isn’t the business of government to make people morally upright.

Is it the business of government to IMPOSE its view of morality on citizens? This question needs to be asked because government IS already doing it.

[DannyTN]

"But it isn’t the business of government to make people morally upright. It has to come from individuals and communities themselves to instill and regulate good behavior."

Have you checked out Somalia. I understand there are very few rules there.

[Utmost Certainty]

Is it the business of government to IMPOSE its view of morality on citizens?

Absolutely not.

This question needs to be asked because government IS already doing it.

I know, and it shouldn't be.

[The_Reader_David]

If the left were sincere about a “wall” of separation between church and state, it would be less objectionable. (I would note as an Orthodox Christian, some of us Christians actually like the Supreme Court decision banning state-sponsored prayer in schools, as it was only that decision that put a stop to U.S. government policy of forcing Orthodox Christian native Alaskan children to attend boarding schools where government-sponsored efforts were made to convert them to protestantism.)

Walls don’t move. Unfortunately, the left’s”wall” is more akin to a bulldozer blade, than to a wall, with the state is driving the bulldozer, and pushing the church out of whatever space the state fancies occupying, as the Obama abortifacient mandate shows.

[paudio]

I think separation of church and state is absolute in institutional sense. Church or clergies don’t have any ex officio seats in any formal type and level of political institutions, unlike in British, for instance, where the CoE still has official ties with the state. I wonder if that’s what Kennedy had in mind. Santorum talks about individual involvement of religious people in political affairs, which covered by the 1st Amendment. This should not be even an issue, but liberals often blur the line. If a Republican candidate gives speech in a church, they cry about the separation of church and state. Ignoring the regular appearances of Democrats in Black churches.

[DannyTN]

"Is it the business of government to IMPOSE its view of morality on citizens? This question needs to be asked because government IS already doing it."

That's exactly right! Government can't operate without a moral view. Government is going to impose it's view, whatever that is, for better or worse. The alternative is Somalia where there is no government.

Our secular government is imposing it's moral view on us. We can't talk about God in schools, Catholics have to perform abortion, Christians have to provide contraception, ....etc.

[JDW11235]

“RE: But it isn’t the business of government to make people morally upright.”

“Is it the business of government to IMPOSE its view of morality on citizens? This question needs to be asked because government IS already doing it.”
__________________________________________________________

This is precisely why God’s inspired Government (and our Constitution), expressly forbids Goverment from interjecting into more than a handful of issues. Because the pendulum ALWAYS swings the other way. If people try to use government to enforce morality (beyond crimes/harm against other people), they are overstepping God’s bounds. And eventually the rationale the use for restricting people’s freedoms are used against them. Either extreme is always the abridgement of freedom, whether it’s for “our own good” on the “right” or the “left.” Good government butts out of peoples lives, and lets them face the consequences. Children out of wedlock, scrape by in poverty. Rampant sexual behavior, get diseases. The problem is that we don’t allow people to make bad choices and face the consequences. That’s the ONLY thing that teaches people.

And yes, it’s wrong for goverment to impose its view of morality upon the people. It’s NOWHERE in the Constitution. States may vary on that, as I do not know the States’ Constitutions.

Is the government wasn’t doing unconstitutional and/or immoral things things like taxing income, and interfering in a persona’s right to house, employy etc. whomever they want, then we would have the issues of who’s married and who’s not, etc. etc. I am all for a Federal Amendment for a definition of marriage, but without an amendment, and that’s a strict and near unanimous process. All these things are outseide the proper role of government.

[clee1]

That was my thought too.

[Isabel C.]

Nobody wants sodomy, polygamy, bestiality, etc.

It wasn't too long ago that people were saying "Nobody wants same-sex marriage".

[Utmost Certainty]

This is precisely why God’s inspired Government (and our Constitution), expressly forbids Goverment from interjecting into more than a handful of issues. Because the pendulum ALWAYS swings the other way. If people try to use government to enforce morality (beyond crimes/harm against other people), they are overstepping God’s bounds. And eventually the rationale the use for restricting people’s freedoms are used against them. Either extreme is always the abridgement of freedom, whether it’s for “our own good” on the “right” or the “left.” Good government butts out of peoples lives, and lets them face the consequences. Children out of wedlock, scrape by in poverty. Rampant sexual behavior, get diseases. The problem is that we don’t allow people to make bad choices and face the consequences. That’s the ONLY thing that teaches people.

My thoughts exactly. Well said.

[Utmost Certainty]

It wasn't too long ago that people were saying "Nobody wants same-sex marriage".

What's the alternative? Establish laws explicitly prohibiting every immoral act a person might do?

Don't think that's very practical. Like I said, morality has to come from within as something a person knows and believes—through upbringing and experience, etc.