Santorum's take on church vs state

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Well, when you believe we just appeared from apes, and apes from semi rats and them from sea creatures, and that from scum, and the planet from nothing, add in alot of faith, throw in some hatred and intolerance, plus a complete ineptness as to understanding the bill of rights, the constitution etc, also cant forget the ongoing ineptness of understanding religion, what it means to followers, according to the constitution, the bill of rights etc.
Now, if ever there was direct quotes, and since we also have some from the current admin going against our history, its laws, it rights, God given or elseways, it seems as tho people are more afraid of this, these rights, and would rather see them squashed is a shame, a sham, destructive and so intrusive, accompanied with an alloofness that goes beyond description.
Now, what didnt we get when Mr B.O. crossed our lines of laws and history?
 
There is nothing wrong with Santorum's religious stance. Science does the exact same thing.

You take a hard stance on something until completely proven wrong. How long did E=MC2 last until it was proven wrong? Now that it no longer stands as an absolute, we can move further on. But in order to get there we had to accept it was an absolute.
 
Separation of Church and State is derived from the first amendment of the constitution. My interpretation is that the government will not take religion into consideration when passing laws and that you can not pass laws saying that someone cannot belong to a particular faith. I completely agree with the first amendment in this regard. First off, you cannot take into account someones faith when passing laws because there are so many faiths. One law you pass might violate another faith's principles. Not to mention that religion can be used a tool of oppression and subjugation. It can lead to hatred for a person of another faith as well. When you look back at our history and see how religion has been abused its easy to understand why this is a step forward.

Our traditions have changed many times over the last century, and they will continue to do so. Our country is a melting pot of many different cultures and these will continue to influence each other. As far as I know, our history is unchangeable.

Can you imagine if we had all the different religions involved in our political process?

As far as evolution goes, it happened over millions of years. We humans cannot process that kind of time frame so I understand why you are skeptical. I find the concept of religion far more outlandish than evolution. At least with evolution we have evidence to support it.
 
Santorum is a weirdo and says things that are completely wacky. There should be the separation of church from the state.He is to fanatical with this religion of his and then denounces Kennedy when he said in his speech about his religion should be private from his presidency.This Santorum is a NUT!
 
So an invasive government is bad but invasive religion is our national history?

Is the billions in tax cuts to religious organizations count? I think thats a pretty large affirmation of how much the government cares about churches. They are all tax free.

Even the wacky ones like Scientology.

Ive heard some of you lash out at a Muslim based republics, but when Christians call for more, you just going to roll over and say why not?
 
B.S. the dems dragged abortion into the spotlight. That's a republican talking point through and through.

Heres where religion steps into the worldview

Abortion
Gay Marriage
 
You are ******* nuts! Because the moderator of a debate asks a question about abortion (?!?) its a liberal / democratic plan to force the issue? what the *** is wrong with you?

I WAS ONE YEAR OLD WHEN EXXON CRASHED! Im not wasting my time here. See ya.
 


"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever" If a person must go to the courthouse to pay a fine or something like that, then they are forced to observe an article of worship. That seems to be a violation of this clause.

"or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination" They would have to put up other pieces of religious text to represent the other religions as well.

Those are just the two that stuck out to me, there are a couple of other parts in that section that could also be used to argue against having the religious text in plain view at a courthouse.

By the way, the legislative body is just one part of our government and that's mostly who I was referring to. The judicial branch could still strike down the legislation at anytime.

If you truly think that precedents are the judiciary branch's way of subverting law, then you my friend should either find yourself a new country or get used to it. This is how our legal system has worked since it was created. Precedents are one of the key factors taken into consideration in almost every step of the judicial process. If we had to retry or go over every case individually without referring to previous cases on the matter, our judicial system would collapse. Why argue over something that has already been decided numerous times?

 


There was at least a method and evidence behind E=MC2. I can't say the same about religion, and Santorum's stance is ludicrous at best. Lets have it so that religion is above the rules that every person in the country is bound by. Lets make it so that any religion can do anything they want and answer to no one but God. Let's make the United States of America a country ruled by the Churchs. Yes, this sounds like a great idea. All you have to do is look at what drove our forefathers here in the first place to understand that this is a horrible idea.

By the way, nothing is proven as an absolute in the scientific process. It is only accepted as fact and even then there are always people trying to prove it wrong. It doesn't matter if you have 1000 experiments and they all point in the same direction. Nothing can ever be PROVEN to be true, only accepted as fact until evidence suggests otherwise. If only religion or our political process worked the same way.
 


On Abortion, it is because many people do not want to fund it. Remove Federal money from being supplied to locations that do abortions and the issue on a political scale would disappear.

Gay marriage. Can't force a church to do what it doesn't want to do. Let gay people have civil unions or whatever they want to be recognized by the government as together. From the standpoint of the Church/Religion, the term "marriage" to sacred to them. It is a simple as making the exact same rights but calling it something else.. that would remove the issue again. Politics as usual.
 


I do agree that politics play too much of a role in the judicial process. It is suppose to be an impartial process but when you are put into your position by democrats or republicans, because you think along the same lines as they do, then I cannot agree with that process. If there is a republican majority in the supreme court and an abortion law comes up for debate, then they rule against it and set the precedent, then is that fair? Luckily precedents from previous cases can be retried for a different outcome, but on the whole our judicial system would be chaos without them.

If you are an atheist or belong to another religion that does not accept the 10 commandments as text relating to your religion and then you are forcing them to observe religious text from another religion, that is a violation of your rights to not have another religion imposed on you. Also it just sets a bad example for our justice system. It is suppose to be impartial with no relation to any religion or any other factor. I would expect a country like Iran to do this. Not because they are followers of Islam, but because they are a nation ruled by the church.

People should be able to worship in their houses and on their property however they please. Also if they establish a church, then they should be able to worship there whenever they want. However, the second their worship is imposed on someone else in a median that does not pertain to a church or their private residences or land, then you run into problems. I don't have to go to your church or house, but I am legally obligated to go to the courthouse in certain situations. In other words I am inadvertently being forced to observe religious text against my will.
 
Such a liberal argument. Liberals first need to learn to be tolerant. Second, they need to understand that not everyone will be happy. Third, they need to understand that most of the time "not everyone will be happy" will likely be them.
 


Agree with the abortion comment. If people don't want tax money spent on certain government programs then their claims are legitimate. As far as marriage, a church cannot force a government to not do something. If two gay people want to go to the city hall and get a marriage license, let them. Their rights in no way interfere with yours and you cannot deny them based on religion or the fact that you don't like it.
 


You dismiss my argument by saying it is liberal and that not everyone will be happy? Gotcha, good point!
 


Yep. The internet is a large place, no reason to wast time here. Im off! Maybe ill find out where Gulli went or the other 20+ people you have ostracized.
 


You are not forced to go to the public square or accept the pamphlet. You can also hand out your own pamphlet or speak your own gospel. In the end, the main reason the people in the public square can do this but the courtroom cannot is because the courtroom is an extension of the government and they cannot promote any religion.

Why does the 10 commandments have to be in the courtroom anyways? At the simplest level its absurd, it conveys all the wrong messages about our legal system. Its almost like the judge is going to base his or her judgement on religious text. You don't see anything wrong with that? You might as well have a priest up there handing out judgements. No one can base the judgement of a fellow man or woman based on their beliefs in their religion. Only their God can do that, the thing we can base judgement on is the laws that a collection of us passed to govern ourselves and the evidence brought against us.
 
He is not consistent like you say one time he says he was for Romney years ago and now he says no. His concepts are really weird about his religious beliefs and education. He is a fanatic about this religious beliefs of his and his accusations are also not really logical. Education is indoctrinated by Obama talking
about college . Forgot this weirdo!
 
Hey......

Guess what, freedom is an ethereal thing.
Ot is enjoyed and shared until someone attacks it. Tears it down. Makes it a bad thing.
Do we just start giving these things up?
Handing out decisions about how, what and why were supposed to think?
I trust no one more than our founding fathers whove set up a constitution thats been and will go down in all of human history as the best, or one of the best ever written.

After 200 plus years, its starting to be torn at, reinterpreted.
People say, its outdated, people say it no longer fits today.
The only thing thats changed from now since then is a few inventions which allow us to worry about getting fat and lazy, and these same that attack our understanding of, and the very value of our constitution our now wanting us to eat what they want us to eat, as we slowly get fatter and lazier.

Some doll this up, as now man is close to having his chance at a utopia, where need and strife are no longer a part of life.
Where our very thoughts and hearts should change for a greater whole to achieve these goals.
Smacks of communism to me.
The state was too important to allow God into it
Reminds me of this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3YFmpSFJ40
 


If the judge did decide on wearing the crucifix or star of david, I doubt that anything could be done about it. Why they would feel the need to wear it on the outside, instead of tucked in, is another matter. I think the portrait of jesus on the bench would be along the same lines as the 10 commandments. The judge comes and goes but the bench stays in the courthouse.

I won't deny that our legal system has roots in religion, its just that if I were up for trial and was innocent, I would want people to look at the evidence and nothing more. I wouldn't want them to judge me based on faith, nor would I want them to be influenced by the judge having religious text in the courtroom. I guess some people would want the exact opposite though.
 


I would think that the guy that wrote them was pissed that his neighbor screwed his wife.
 
Well, if people assume a foundation is after anything else, then I guess it is.
Having things like the ten commandments are great foundations, and arent meant to be use in conjunction with corruption, but, obviously the worlds upside down, so we must look at it this way

PS If we dont look at it this way, we will not only not be able to understand some people, but never be able to help them
 


Why does anyone feel the need to display the 10 commandments out in public anyways? What does it accomplish besides create controversy? Do people not feel complete in their faith unless they are reminded of it every time they go to court, or in the judge's case work? Sounds selfish to me that someone would need to display their faith to feel good about themselves, or maybe it's just a ploy to earn God's favor? If people feel the need to express their religious beliefs to other people, then do it with people that share the same sentiment, in church or other religious venues. There is a place and time for everything.

If someone was trying to remove god from society all together, they should go after churchs first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom