The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Radicalization of GOP

Sanatorium doesn't believe in separation of church and state

Republican candidate Rick Santorum raised a fuss this weekend -- one of several -- by saying on ABC News' This Week that he "almost threw up" after reading John F. Kennedy's 1960 speech on religion.



This makes me sad, the fact that Rick Santorum viewed by some as a serious presidential candidate is a milestone on the road of the decline and fall of the American Era.

Constitutionally there is no "separation of church and state".

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

That is all that is in the Constitution about religion.

The government can not make a religion is all it says, nothing about the state and church can't work together.

@ Helemoto

I have nothing to say to a person with views like that.

So you have nothing to say to someone who can read and understand what they've read?

Although I'd take that statement to mean that government should also not show preferential treatment of one religion over another one. So, them working together is a bit of a stretch for me.

If a church wants to influence the government then they can do that by what they teach and then expect their people (the power behind our government) to do what they teach is right.

Once again you show how close minded you are.

Items of historical note -

http://www.tncrimlaw.com/civil_bible/hebrew_congregation.htm

George Washingtons letter to Torou Synagogue

-
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Jeffersons letter to the Danbury Baptists.
------------------------------------------------

It is quite clear that Founding Generation intended to found a secular state, as only a secular state can grant equal liberty and freedom of conscience. The Constitution does not define the word religion, so we must, as the SCOTUS has, look to the public writings of the men of the age to ascertain precisely what was intended by Constitutional wording.

I will say as well however, that some legal advocacy groups such as the ACLU ( which I tend to agree with on most issues but not this one ) do go too far in their attempts to banish imagery or trappings of religion from public life.

It seems self evident that the Founders never intended to banish Christmas Trees from the public square; but rather that Wiccans and Jews and others have equal rights to display and practice the tenets of their own faith and place a menorah or shrine next to the Xmas Tree in that same public square.

You don't have to look far to see the inevitable consequences of your position.

Once again you go to the extreme.
Nowhere did I say that the government should control or be controlled by any religion.

I said the government can work with any religion and still be to the letter of the law.

You say government can not help any religion no matter what or it will cause the world to collapse.

If government helps out any organization it is ok but if it is some religion it is bad.
Those same organizations that the government supports can make the people who use the services adhere to what they deem good,
the same thing a religion does so you should be up in arms about them also.

If a religion is helping storm victims that means to you that the government can not come help the same victims because it would mean that the government is supporting a religion.

If government used all the support programs out there then a lot more people could be helped. So by not wanting to help people every way possible you are a bad person.

You are just as bad as the links you posted.

You are still the most close minded person I have seen here,
no matter how you try to brush me off.

It seems to me that a great many of those groups and their supporters have misconstrued " freedom OF religion" to be "freedom FROM religion"