Separation of church and state makes him want to throw up

[thereisnospoon]

A typical mistake made by many on the right is the incorrect perception that to prohibit the conjoining of church and State is somehow a violation of religious expression, as protected by the Free Exercise Clause.

One is allowed to express his faith any way he wishes, in any venue he wishes, public or private. That has always been the case.

There are also circumstances where church and State may co-exist, provided the religious expression has a secular purpose, such as chaplains in the military, a homily before a session of Congress, or ‘in god we trust’ on currency. The religious expression must also not act to promote religion and there may not be an ‘excessive entanglement’ between representatives of the state and the religious expression. And with regard to the Free Exercise Clause, government may not preempt religious expression without a compelling reason supported by evidence, such as those claiming sex with children as part of religious doctrine. See: Lemon v. Kurtzman

The state may not require, by policy or statute, religious expression designed to promote religion, such as prayer in public schools, where there is clearly no secular purpose and it manifests excessive entanglement of school employees, where teachers are leading prayer.

For more than 5 decades the courts have established a framework of Constitutional case law that can accommodate virtually every circumstance of potential church/State conflict, allowing law and policy makers more than adequate guidance to avoid potential violations.

Clearly Santorum and those of his ilk wish to destroy this framework of Constitutional case law in favor greater religious authority exercised by the State. This violates the rule of law, as Constitutional rights are not determined by majority rule.

What people are twisting the phrase 'seperation of church and state' to mean is 180 degrees opposite to what the First Amendment actually affirms; complete religious freedom for law abiding citizens. It barred the establishment of an official church like England had at that time and many American states had also.

In your opinion, but not as a fact of law.

The seconf amendment was specifically about gun rights, whatever name you choose to refer to it by.

As with the First Amendment, the Second Amendment is interpreted by the Supreme Court, its rulings become part of Constitutional case law, where the Constitution exists only in the context of that case law.

The operative being "may not require"...That does not mean "will not allow" or "Shall not be permitted"..In other words, the ruling clearly states that no state can compel a person to pray or celebrate a certain religion in a public venue. It does NOT state that people cannot pray on their own or decide to do so on their own.
This separation thing is coming to a head and I believe this time should it get to the SCOTUS, the Justices will rule in favor of for example a small town government which opens it's meetings with a prayer, to be able to do that so as long as the members all agree to do so. That would finally get groups such as the ACLU off their backs so the elected officials can A) do their jobs and B) thank the Lord for protecting them and to help them make the correct decisions.
The fact that one could have 10,000 people in agreement on their religious beliefs and how they wish to conduct themselves in public and just one person comes forward and says "I'm offended and you're infringing on my rights" the whole fucking world has to stop while this one douchebag hauls half the county into court.
There is no such thing as freedom FROM religion.
The fact is the far left wing of the democrat party which has taken the party to far left has brought this on themselves. The great shove back against out of control liberalism is going to happen.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The real debate is that the government is requiring that people have to buy ANY health insurance anyway.

I agree, that's a far more pressing issue. But that fact does not explain the reactions and stances people have taken over the whole birth control issue.

 

[Big Fitz]

1. A belief system does not equal religion.

2. When you die you rot.

3. How does the Bible prove what created the universe?

1. Yes it does, by your own admission.
2. Your soul too?
3. It doesn't, we believe it explains it, hence belief system.

You're welcome.

1. Are Democrats and Republicans considered religions? After all, they have different belief systems. What about global warming believers and deniers? They have different belief systems.

2. Who said we have a soul? Can you prove we have a soul?

3. You believe it - good for you. I don't.

Politics answers the questions of why we are here and the nature of the universe?

It's a political belief system. Not a religion.

Though some libs seem to not get that in lieu of their hatred for anything that resembles a divinity greater than themselves.

 

[FA_Q2]

A typical mistake made by many on the right is the incorrect perception that to prohibit the conjoining of church and State is somehow a violation of religious expression, as protected by the Free Exercise Clause.

One is allowed to express his faith any way he wishes, in any venue he wishes, public or private. That has always been the case.

There are also circumstances where church and State may co-exist, provided the religious expression has a secular purpose, such as chaplains in the military, a homily before a session of Congress, or ‘in god we trust’ on currency. The religious expression must also not act to promote religion and there may not be an ‘excessive entanglement’ between representatives of the state and the religious expression. And with regard to the Free Exercise Clause, government may not preempt religious expression without a compelling reason supported by evidence, such as those claiming sex with children as part of religious doctrine. See: Lemon v. Kurtzman

The state may not require, by policy or statute, religious expression designed to promote religion, such as prayer in public schools, where there is clearly no secular purpose and it manifests excessive entanglement of school employees, where teachers are leading prayer.

For more than 5 decades the courts have established a framework of Constitutional case law that can accommodate virtually every circumstance of potential church/State conflict, allowing law and policy makers more than adequate guidance to avoid potential violations.

Interesting that you claim a 'mistake made by many on the right' and then continue to list off a bunch of shit that the left has been doing in the last few decades. As a matter of fact, the right has the exact OPPOSITE issue that you stated. You are quite intelligent, please stop framing every damn thing you type in partisan hackery. It is not helping anyone read your posts.

Clearly Santorum and those of his ilk wish to destroy this framework of Constitutional case law in favor greater religious authority exercised by the State. This violates the rule of law, as Constitutional rights are not determined by majority rule.

Again, provide something that actually shows that. The quote that was put fourth in the OP is bullshit and he has already been called on it.

What people are twisting the phrase 'seperation of church and state' to mean is 180 degrees opposite to what the First Amendment actually affirms; complete religious freedom for law abiding citizens. It barred the establishment of an official church like England had at that time and many American states had also.

In your opinion, but not as a fact of law.

The seconf amendment was specifically about gun rights, whatever name you choose to refer to it by.

As with the First Amendment, the Second Amendment is interpreted by the Supreme Court, its rulings become part of Constitutional case law, where the Constitution exists only in the context of that case law.

This statement is not really correct. The constitution does, certainly, exist independent of case law. Case law may define how the constitution is applied and what it means in the real world but it still exists whether or not a mountain of court cases are present. Also, the Supremes have been incorrect before and overturned their own decisions so it is entirely valid for someone to point out they believe the Supremes were incorrect in a decision that was made. The idea that all law is simply settled and final is bunk.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Also, the Supremes have been incorrect before and overturned their own decisions so it is entirely valid for someone to point out they believe the Supremes were incorrect in a decision that was made. The idea that all law is simply settled and final is bunk.

This is true, and the Supreme Court has maintained that when a case comes before it, it will not necessarily be bound to rule according to a previous decision, if it finds that previous decision to be clearly in error, or insufficient guidance to a current case. However, when the courts have maintained a general and consistent attitude over decades and dozens, if not hundreds, of cases, there is no reasonable grounds to expect that anything meaningful is going to change. To the contrary, we should consider that such a question is indeed firmly settled.

 

[FA_Q2]

Also, the Supremes have been incorrect before and overturned their own decisions so it is entirely valid for someone to point out they believe the Supremes were incorrect in a decision that was made. The idea that all law is simply settled and final is bunk.

This is true, and the Supreme Court has maintained that when a case comes before it, it will not necessarily be bound to rule according to a previous decision, if it finds that previous decision to be clearly in error, or insufficient guidance to a current case. However, when the courts have maintained a general and consistent attitude over decades and dozens, if not hundreds, of cases, there is no reasonable grounds to expect that anything meaningful is going to change. To the contrary, we should consider that such a question is indeed firmly settled.

Don't take my statement the wrong way, I never argued they were incorrect in this matter. I have seen Clayton parrot that same statement a hundred times though and I think that it needs to be addressed.

 

[Avatar4321]

Santorum: Separation Of Church And State 'Makes Me Want To Throw Up'

Damn that pesky little First Amendment. Its just SO inconvenient to Santorum.

Sadly, there are many rw's who are so dumb, they actually don't realize what this creep is saying.

And there are many LWs who have no clue what the First Amendment actually says.

 

[Lakhota]

You are an anti-Semite. Just admit it. You hate Jews.

If I hated Jews I'd say so. As a Native American, I can easily sympathize with how the Jewish people have suffered historically. I can also easily understand how the Palestinians are suffering.

Really? You think you know the plight of the so called Palestinians? First, what is a Palestinian? Then ask yourself why it is there is no room in any of the other Arab nations for their Palestinian brothers?
"As a Native American"....Yeah and? That makes you think you have insight on a people that lives 1/3 the way around the globe?
Look, don't start this "I'm a PC minority, so I am an expert on this" bullshit.
You know as much about the Palestinian plight as a dude from Wisconsin. In other words unless you've walked a mile in the shoes ( or sandals) of a Palestinian living in the Middle East, you know precisely DICK.
Your claim to "abused minority status" is a legitimate as the people who wanted white people of European descent residing in the Appalachian Mountains of the SE USA to be declared a minority group. In other words, they wanted money from the federal government AND they wanted Politically correct protected class status.
I get sick and fucking tired of people who place themselves into protected classes do nothing with the advantages those classes offer and whine about how rotten their lives are.
Or the ones who take every advantage, assimilate to the American Culture then as a matter of convenience and gain an advantage, remind anyone who will listen " I am a minority, so kiss my ass"....Yeah well ask me if I care if you're an Indian. Big fucking deal. Go open a casino.

Thank you. You have proven to be about what I thought you were.

 

[jillian]

MARBURY v. MADISON is from 1803! It explains the power of judicial review. STILL good law.

Not according to either Madison or Jefferson.

madison and jefferson weren't the high court. they were politicians.

 

[jillian]

Not according to either Madison or Jefferson.

See U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683.

What does that case have to do with Madison's and Jefferson's outrage over the Marbury v. Madison decision?...I mean besides nothing.

because Marbury v Madison is law, their feelings about it aren't.

 

[paperview]

MARBURY v. MADISON is from 1803! It explains the power of judicial review. STILL good law.

Not according to either Madison or Jefferson.

madison and jefferson weren't the high court. they were politicians.

And John Adams thought the Alien and Sedition Acts were just dandy.

 

[jillian]

Not according to either Madison or Jefferson.

madison and jefferson weren't the high court. they were politicians.

And John Adams thought the Alien and Sedition Acts were just dandy.

some people forget that, although brililant men, they were flawed like any other politicians and were of their era. there is a reason there is judicial review.

 

[Leweman]

madison and jefferson weren't the high court. they were politicians.

And John Adams thought the Alien and Sedition Acts were just dandy.

some people forget that, although brililant men, they were flawed like any other politicians and were of their era. there is a reason there is judicial review.

Good thing judges are perfect and unbiased and accountable to voters.

 

[paperview]

And John Adams thought the Alien and Sedition Acts were just dandy.

some people forget that, although brililant men, they were flawed like any other politicians and were of their era. there is a reason there is judicial review.

Good thing judges are perfect and unbiased and accountable to voters.

No one is perfect, some. if not most judges are biased and some judges are elected and some aren't.

What's your point?

 

[Nosmo King]

Rick Santorum. The american Taliban.

What's so different between one theocratic philosophy and another?

One Conservative group wants to replace a secular code of laws with one they interpret from scripture, and impose their set of values on a people who are not in complete agreement, and the other supports jihad.

I guess Forrest Gump was right after all. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[Big Fitz]

Rick Santorum. The american Taliban.

What's so different between one theocratic philosophy and another?

One Conservative group wants to replace a secular code of laws with one they interpret from scripture, and impose their set of values on a people who are not in complete agreement, and the other supports jihad.

I guess Forrest Gump was right after all. Stupid is as stupid does.

Noooooo... that's not an insane level of hyperbole.

You are right... stupid is as stupid does. You should use a mirror when thinking that to see the real source of stupid if you think that Santorum is "American Taliban".

Besides, haven't you already claimed that about the Tea Parties?

Is everyone who has any faith nothing short of 'Taliban' to your obviously radical hatred of faith?

 

[Paulie]

Regardless of what he actually meant, this is not going to be received well by the independent and moderate voters in the general if he wins the nomination.

There's no way this guy is beating Obama. It's amazing to me that there are republicans who are supporting this guy.

 

[Paulie]

madison and jefferson weren't the high court. they were politicians.

And John Adams thought the Alien and Sedition Acts were just dandy.

some people forget that, although brililant men, they were flawed like any other politicians and were of their era. there is a reason there is judicial review.

The power of judicial review should have been expressed to the court in an amendment to the constitution, because otherwise the constitution does not mention any such power for the court.

 

[Nosmo King]

Rick Santorum. The american Taliban.

What's so different between one theocratic philosophy and another?

One Conservative group wants to replace a secular code of laws with one they interpret from scripture, and impose their set of values on a people who are not in complete agreement, and the other supports jihad.

I guess Forrest Gump was right after all. Stupid is as stupid does.

Noooooo... that's not an insane level of hyperbole.

You are right... stupid is as stupid does. You should use a mirror when thinking that to see the real source of stupid if you think that Santorum is "American Taliban".

Besides, haven't you already claimed that about the Tea Parties?

Is everyone who has any faith nothing short of 'Taliban' to your obviously radical hatred of faith?

I never equated the Tea Parties with extreme fundamentalism. That's a red herring.

But Li'l Ricky's far Right Social agenda bears scrutiny by anyone who does not want to live in the equivalent of a Catholic caliphate. Ricky hates homosexuals and would declare any same sex marriage null and void. Ricky hates the idea of family planning and would eliminate or at least severely restrict access to contraceptives and abortion.

Ricky wants to impose his narrow template of morality on the American people. And the people who whine loudest about intrusive government are cheering him on!

Those who wring their hands in anxiety over Obama's faith are clapping lustily over Santorum's.

Li'l Ricky Santorum. One of the greatest minds of the 17th century.

 

[Katzndogz]

I have not heard Santorum telling churches to campaign for him from the pulpit. obama, on the other hand is not troubled by such trivia.