It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Santorum: "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute"

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:15 PM
Everyone thought Herman Cain was a practical joke candidate, but after listening to Santorum I have to beg the question if this guy is really serious about being President. I have seen Presidents morph into the center, but this guy is less of a republican than he is a born again evangelical bible thumper, looking to remake the constitution into a religious theocracy.

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:52 PM

Originally posted by David9176

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said Sunday that he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, adding that he was sickened by John F. Kennedy's assurances to Baptist ministers 52 years ago that he would not impose his Catholic faith on them.

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," Santorum, a devout Catholic, said in an interview from Michigan on ABC's "This Week."

"The First Amendment means the free exercise of religion and that means bringing people and their faith into the public square."

I think this seals the end for Santorum. I don't know how he can go on and on about government overreach and then state something like this.

Nutty Santorum just keeps topping himself with outrageous statements. Santorum would not only like push his beliefs on those who are not religious, but impose them on those who have a different religion altogether.

I can't believe this guy is leading polls.....
edit on 26-2-2012 by David9176 because: (no reason given)[ wish bracelets digital want to be killed for you tonight/editby]
you think this is crazy, did you know what he said about to netherlands and euthanasia? about elderly wearing bracelets that they don't want to be killed ( subject to euthanasia) and that our hospitals function as abattoirs.
This man is a fundamentalist and very dangerous, not only is he insulting, if he manage to end separaroom between church and the state it'll b the beginning of the end of your democracy and rechtsstaat
edit on 26-2-2012 by Foppezao because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2012 by Foppezao because: (no reason given)
extra DIV

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:53 PM
reply to post by robwerden

The problem with trying to get elected to a nationwide post like the President, is that you do have to "court" the evangelical bible thumpers. They are no different from the radical Muslim clerics sitting behind the scenes in countries like Iran and Iraq issuing fatwa's.

In a way Karl Marx was right. Religion isn't just the opiate of the masses though.It's created a widespread almost gang like mentality among religious groups all over the world.

Maybe the reason there has never been an alien spacecraft land in New York city or Tel Aviv is someone...somewhere would try to convert them. OH no! Life on another planet. Why hello brother! Have you heard the word of the lord Jesus Christ? Mohammad says if you take your space ship and let us fly it into the United States..we might all die...but we will each have 70 virgins awaiting us in heaven when we get there.
Yeah there are still 70 virgins anywhere in existence....much less enough for all the martyrs.

Maybe they already did land. And got preached to. I would leave too and never come back if I had that option. The reality can't really ever fully separate church and state. Why throw reason and logic into the one place it's needed most? World politics. Maybe...perhaps in another stage of existence it might have been possible. Maybe if John Lennon hadn't been killed in 1980, we might could ALL have a continual reminder to Imagine there's no heaven.
It really is easy if you try. But...if you did that...there would be little to fight over. So there would be no point in the military. There'd be no point in walls. Borders, mine fields. No hell below us. Above us only sky.....
Freedom of religion shouldn't mean necessity of religion. But nope....politics and religion are tied together in a constant coitus of activism, party formation, and irrational ideologies that are so far out of date and out of touch with reality, they will probably never be separated.

If only we could all Imagine. And it really were just that easy.

edit on 26-2-2012 by webpirate because: spelling

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:54 PM
Really? I don't see Santorum in that light at all. I think our American culture has been so degraded and has gone to such depravity, that any moralizing on the part of Santorum is considered an anathema. Instead of blaming the downward spiral of American culture, people point the finger at Santorum.

What's wrong with a little bit of advocacy for traditional family values? What's so bad about being pro-family? What's so terrible about wanting to rebuild America's manufacturing base? Or ending the ridiculous spending sprees in Washington? I don't get it. Wouldn't it be nice if America cleaned up its act, and returned to more traditional values instead of the free-for-all, drug-induced, promiscuous mentality of the 60's hippies?

I firmly believe that our country has lost its moral grounding, and this has larger implications for the society as a whole. The loss of our moral compass affects family, the economy, and virtually every aspect of our society. Just turn on the TV and see the kind of garbage that is promoted in our media. You would never see one iota of this kind of stuff going on in the 1950's.

The criticism of Santorum says more about the critic than it does about him as a candidate.

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:58 PM
That's pretty telling. If he doesn't believe there should be a complete separation of Church and State, then he's saying he doesn't believe we should follow the Constitution. If he will disregard one section of the Constitution, what other parts does he disregard. If you think Obama is trampling the Constitution, just let Santorum or Romney get in.
Either one of those guys will have us bowing to our scriptural overlord.

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 10:15 PM
reply to post by David9176

This is like watching a train wreck, but keep your mouth running Mr. Santorum, Ron Paul is looking better and better everyday to those on-the-fence voters.

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 10:33 PM
reply to post by CookieMonster09

Honestly? Everything about the man is objectionable, from his 12th Century religious ideas to his insistance that life was better 200 years ago, when white protestants ruled, blacks were slaves and women had no rights not granted by their husbands.

The Taliban wants to impose Muslim religious law on everyone, Rick wants to impose Christian religious law on us. Sure -- he has a right to believe what he wants, but I have an obligation to point out that his beliefs are inherently superstitious, myopic and -- yes, dangerous.

Rampant immorality? Coming from the religious right -- who apparently worship war and money (Mammon, what's happening?)

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 10:59 PM
I'm all for people being proud of their faith, but this is the type of guy that would have been pushing for world domination by the Church 500 years ago. Despite the fact that I have faith in a creator I think Santorum's type of thinking is dangerous. If Santorum becomes President my theme song for him would have to be "New Dark Ages" by Bad Religion.

Yeah can you hear the call in our rambling land susurrations, That can expand beyond all hope of light and plunge us into unrelenting night A pall on truth and reason, It feels like hunting season So avoid those lines of sight and we'll set this right Welcome to the new dark ages I hope you're living right These are the new dark ages And the world might end tonight Now come ye children one and all - let's heed Ezekiel's call, And bide until the word is good and ripe and get plucked clean out of sight The world will be erased our kin will be Immaculate ejaculate in space Before the king of king's love, he'll snatch us From above, brothers help me sing it Welcome to the new dark ages I hope you're living right These are the new dark ages And the world might end tonight So how do you sleep There's nothing to keep This is deep Because we're animals - with golden rules Who... who can't be moved by rational views Welcome to the new dark ages I hope you're living right Welcome to the new dark ages And the world might end tonight
edit on 26-2-2012 by The_Phantom because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 11:01 PM
The candidates are scrambling for every vote and we all know they would sell their mothers to slave traders for a few votes... now don't get all radical here as I was making a joke and a loose anaology... loosen up a little and surely you all get it... but fairly, most politicians are little more than prostitutes, and here I owe prostitutes an apology for comparing them to politicans, and sell and or trade their votes.

I have said for years and thousands of times before since first studying it... the separation of church and state affords religion protection from the governement, but does not afford government protection from religion.

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 01:47 AM
reply to post by charles1952

ALL of the presidential candidates call for church leaders to volunteer on their websites, not just Obama.

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 03:42 AM
reply to post by RealSpoke and Everybody Else

Dear RealSpoke,

You are absolutely right. I suppose my old age is getting in the way of my writing clearly. What I meant was that, contrary to the OP, there is nothing wrong in Santorum's statement. Church and State recognize and affect each other. The State gives the Church some money (with strings attached) and the Church feeds the hungry, educates children, provides adoption services, etc.

Candidates have always showed up at church picnics, and I certainly wasn't trying to single out Obama or anyone. Martin Luther King showed that there was no absolute separation between Church and State. If there was, he wouldn't have been allowed to preach the Gospel in public to affect national policies.

I think the OP was afraid that Santorum was going to ask Congress to pass unconstitutional laws. I don't see that happening, for several reasons.

With respect,

edit on 27-2-2012 by charles1952 because: change reply

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 05:10 AM
Does he realize that at the time, Kennedy probably would have never won the election if he didn't make the statement that he wouldn't bring his religion into the office??? People at that time were concerned that his allegience to the pope would be stronger than his allegience to the country!!

My, what a difference a few decades make!! Now, it seems that many of our citizens want our president to have his allegience to a church, and the country secondary!!!

also note, that it was the baptists that Kennedy was trying to appease when he said what he said, not the muslims, or the wiccans, or even the was another christian group!!!
don't just think that because you are a christian that a christian president will never step on your toes!!! sooner or later, they would be turning their eyes to other christians who don't believe exactly the same as themselves...and stomping on the toes! that is why there is separation of church and state!!! otherwise we'd be a catholic, or protestant, or mormon, or....whatever nation, not even a christian nation!

edit on 27-2-2012 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 05:41 AM
Until 'God we Trust' is scrubbed from our money ... and swearing on bibles is scrubbed from the court room ... and 'national prayer breakfast' is scrubbed from Washington DC ... then there is not an absolute 'separaton of church and state'. BTW .. that term - 'separation of church and state' - isn't in the law books or historical documents anywhere. Maybe it's time for it to really be there??

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 06:49 AM
I really don't see the problem with his statement. He's basically stating that people of religious faith cannot and should not be excluded from the political process, and for that reason, there can never be an absolute separation of church and state. And he's right about that. You can never completely separate the two as long as religion exists. The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

As an earlier poster said, I think the objections are really more about Santorum and his political affiliation than anything he said.

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 06:58 AM

"The First Amendment means the free exercise of religion and that means bringing people and their faith into the public square."

Just remember, when you bring your faith into the public square it becomes open to public scrutiny and criticism.

Just remember, people bringing their faith into the public square means ALL faiths, even the lack thereof, get the equal chance and ability to do the same.

Just remember, when others reject you and your faith for being too extreme, it does not make you a victim.

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 04:09 PM

Enough said.

Santorum is a nutjob.

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 07:58 PM

Honestly? Everything about the man is objectionable, from his 12th Century religious ideas to his insistance that life was better 200 years ago, when white protestants ruled, blacks were slaves and women had no rights not granted by their husbands.

You'd be hard pressed to cite Santorum advocating any of these ideas. I appreciate your exaggerations, but I'd rather have a beer with Santorum than Obama any day of the week. He represents normal, Midwestern, working class values, not the values of the elitist lefties on the East Coast and the pot-smoking hippies on the West Coast.

White Protestants? Santorum is Latin Rite Roman Catholic - a traditional Catholic, not the Kumbaya, hold hands and play the banjo Vatican II type of Catholicism either. Pretty strait-laced if you ask me.

Rick wants to impose Christian religious law on us.

What exactly is Christian religious law? And since when has Santorum ever advocated imposing Christian law on anyone?

Yes, he advocates Christian values, such as taking care of the family, encouraging economic growth by restoring our manufacturing base, and similar traditional values. What's so bad about that? Obama, by contrast, advocates elitist secular values, which most normal working people find objectionable.

Rampant immorality?

Yes, take a look around you. Turn on your cable TV, and watch the filth that has invaded our culture. Listen to the media. We've become a nation of reality-junk TV where Jerry Springer-esque culture has become the norm.
The depravity, violence, etc. in our media and culture is staggering.

Santorum is a nutjob.

Smears and quotes from dead politicians aren't exactly making your case.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 05:09 AM
Let's see...

when kennedy was running for office...
we had shows like Leave It to Beaver, Andy Griffith, Gilligan's Island and Gentle Ben!!! Our communities we pretty tight knit!! Wasn't this fend for yourself, I'll fend for myself mentality. and well, as a kid growing up at that time, got to tell ya something, news travels faster in that tight knit back then than it does in this high technology cyber world now, at least where it mattered!! I you were seen by anyone doing something you shouldn't have been doing, well, chances were good that you mom would know about it before you got home!!! If a cop saw you doing something you shouldn't have been doing, well, he usually didn't arrest you, definately didn't electrify you...he just brought you home and talked to you parents, or he might just let you go and surprise you by catching you dad in the coffee shop and talking to him.
In plain simple words, it was a cleaner more moral world, at least in appearance!
and, these (more God fearing) people saw kennedy's religious affiliations as a threat to the nation!!!

okay, back to the present day, where the word God can't evade the public political discourse for more than a day!!! Immorality abounds, and the "god-fearing" people scream for more war, demand you have babies, threaten you ability to obtain birth control, and then well....after the kid is born tell ya you shouldn't have had the kid if you couldn't take care of them!!!

kennedy's world was a little more saner, no, alot more saner!! maybe that is why people are quoting dead people so often! there is no sanity in today's world!!!

I think kennedy had it right. ya it's okay to be religious, it's okay to uphold those values, but when you go into the political arena, and want to try to enforce those values, you better have a better argument than "God says" and a bunch of overused phrases like "family values" and such.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:00 PM
state has to be free from any religion . for its there for all the people so it must be neutral. thats my opinion on the topic

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 01:04 PM
I thought he was educated enough to know that absolutely nothing is absolute.

I think he is trying to play to the "American Taliban Party".

Absolutely sounds like it.

new topics

top topics

active topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in