Separation of church and state makes him want to throw up

[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.

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.

Well, they didn't, and after 200 years, it pretty damn settled.

 

[jillian]

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.

no. it shouldn't have. it didn't need to be.

its so sad that pretend constitutionalists understand nothing about constitutional construction and judicial review.

like the advice given to the o/p who knows nothing.... go read up on common law countries because that's what we are and it's what we were modeled on. we weren't a code nation like france and were never supposed to be. there is only one code state in this country, Louisiana.

go read.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

who here what's religious symbols (from all religions - christian, islam, etc) on our federal buildings?

 

[BluePhantom]

Do you really not understand the difference being allowing religion to be part of government and not having one single official religion? NO ONE is calling for the latter.

Well after reading this thread it seems to me that Soldier's question above is really the crux of the issue. The problem is that while the First Amendment doesn't specifically say word for word "freedom from religion in government" it is specific that the government cannot establish a state religion. What I think is being overlooked is that the SCOTUS has interpreted that to mean that religion cannot be the foundation upon which law or government policy is established. The reason why is because those with religious motivations will simply pass laws which agree with the tenants of their particular faith (say Catholicism) and after dong this for a while what you end up with is a Catholic government in everything but name.

In other words it seems to be argued that as long as no one comes out and passes a law saying that we are a Catholic nation then government has not established a state religion....but if the government passes multiple smaller laws that are based on Catholic belief then government has in effect become a Catholic entity. The SCOTUS realizes this and as such they have consistently maintained that if government wants to pass a law it has to be for some reason OTHER than a religious one. So while the First Amendment doesn't say word for word "freedom from religion in government" that stance must be assumed and maintained in order to avoid the establishment of a state religion by proxy.

This is why you don't see opponents of gay marriage argue before the courts that it is a violation of Christian belief. It's a flat out losing argument according to the interpretation of the First Amendment by the Supreme Court since its inception.

So essentially what it comes down to is: 1) Santorum has the right to believe whatever he wants and speak his mind. 2) Being a man of faith does not disqualify him from public office. 3) Whatever laws and policies he endorses had better be based on something besides his faith or the SCOTUS will blast it to hell.

 

[Leweman]

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?

ummmmm my point is that they are just as biased as any politician or person in their way of thinking and supreme court justices are not elected. The ability to make laws should stem from elected legislators who are accountable to the people and must go through a process to make law. Not five judges who are biased and are able make up law based on their opinions and political ideology.

 

[Leweman]

Do you really not understand the difference being allowing religion to be part of government and not having one single official religion? NO ONE is calling for the latter.

Well after reading this thread it seems to me that Soldier's question above is really the crux of the issue. The problem is that while the First Amendment doesn't specifically say word for word "freedom from religion in government" it is specific that the government cannot establish a state religion. What I think is being overlooked is that the SCOTUS has interpreted that to mean that religion cannot be the foundation upon which law or government policy is established. The reason why is because those with religious motivations will simply pass laws which agree with the tenants of their particular faith (say Catholicism) and after dong this for a while what you end up with is a Catholic government in everything but name.

In other words it seems to be argued that as long as no one comes out and passes a law saying that we are a Catholic nation then government has not established a state religion....but if the government passes multiple smaller laws that are based on Catholic belief then government has in effect become a Catholic entity. The SCOTUS realizes this and as such they have consistently maintained that if government wants to pass a law it has to be for some reason OTHER than a religious one. So while the First Amendment doesn't say word for word "freedom from religion in government" that stance must be assumed and maintained in order to avoid the establishment of a state religion by proxy.

This is why you don't see opponents of gay marriage argue before the courts that it is a violation of Christian belief. It's a flat out losing argument according to the interpretation of the First Amendment by the Supreme Court since its inception.

So essentially what it comes down to is: 1) Santorum has the right to believe whatever he wants and speak his mind. 2) Being a man of faith does not disqualify him from public office. 3) Whatever laws and policies he endorses had better be based on something besides his faith or the SCOTUS will blast it to hell.

So if Obama tries to raise taxes it will be declared unconstitutional because he says it's what Jesus would want?

 

[BluePhantom]

So if Obama tries to raise taxes it will be declared unconstitutional because he says it's what Jesus would want?

If Obama were to hypothetically come out and say he wants to raise taxes for religious reasons it would not fly. This why no one makes a religious argument before the courts unless they are arguing that the free practice of their religion is being violated. That argument will lose every single time. So Santorum is absolutely wrong here. I mean he is free to hold the belief that church and state should be united if he chooses, but he is not free to run the Executive Branch of government that way if elected.

Now that being said....he will at least in part because as human beings our decisions are always based on our belief system and so his religious beliefs will influence and, perhaps to a large degree, determine his policies, but he will rarely, if ever, base his argument solely on a religious foundation. He will find some other reason to push for the policy and if he actually does try to set policy and base it on a religious principle he will be the most ineffective president ever 'cause the liberals will blast him to pieces in the courts.

 

[Inthemiddle]

no. it shouldn't have. it didn't need to be.

Quite right. It's just plain silly to think that the intention of the founders was for the constitution to spell out definitions that were established and understood, and to excise everything that was not explicitly mentioned. There are a great many things that the founders did not explicitly mention, that even the most ridiculously strict interpretation has never questioned. Nowhere in the constitution is the Judicial branch given the explicit power to issue writs, hear motions, etc. Even the constitution's treatment of habeus corpus is a limit upon Congress, and the writ is not a power that is explicitly granted to the judiciary. These things were then, and remain, part of judicial power. And the same is the case for Judicial Review. Those who insist that judicial review is unconstitutional would have to also insist that nearly every single case the Supreme Court has heard is an unconstitutional exercise of power, because such an argument would have the inescapable consequence of also deeming certiorari an unconstitutional power.

 

[BluePhantom]

So if Obama tries to raise taxes it will be declared unconstitutional because he says it's what Jesus would want?

Let me give you an example of what I am getting at here. There are the official reasons why people endorse things and then there are the real reasons why people endorse things. Let's take abortion as a topic and use myself as an example. I personally despise the act of abortion. I find it a vile, barbaric practice BUT I am pro-choice at the same time. The reason why is because of legal and logical definitions. On moral grounds I oppose it. As a spiritual guy I oppose it on theological grounds as well. But my personal moral code and my personal religious beliefs are not a legitimate foundation upon which to set government policy so they must be completely disregarded. Once that is done all that is left is a definition of when something (in this case a human fetus) is "alive" and therefore protected by US law. I find a convincing argument that by 8 weeks there is a heartbeat and brain activity. I know some sources say earlier but my objective here is not to start a debate about abortion but to illustrate the difference between constitutionally sound arguments and arguments that do not meet that criteria.

So at 8 weeks we have a heart beat and brain activity. For me that is enough to call a fetus "alive". Prior to that point I cannot make a convincing scientific argument that it is a "living human organism". All I can really say is that it has the potential to evolve into one and calling it "alive" at that point is more of a religious conviction than a sound scientific position.

As such, I can support a federal ban of abortion based upon the demonstration of a reasonably sound scientific definition of "alive" at eight weeks. Prior to that my only arguments are moral and religious and, since those are not legitimate bases upon which to set policy, I cannot oppose it in regards to government policy prior to that despite my disdain for the practice.

Make sense? So if I were to argue against abortion prior to eight weeks I might try to come up with some scientific arguments and that would be my official basis, but in reality it would only be a smokescreen for my religious convictions which would be my real basis.

 

[bodecea]

[That's correct, It's vague when it comes to many constitutional questions, it's why the supreme court defined it further to mean that there is a wall that the founders were too negligent to build.

The Supreme Court doesn't have that authority.

Judicial Review. Yes it does.

 

[bodecea]

The Supreme Court doesn't have that authority.

Sure they do, it's what they are there for, to answer constitutional questions that the actual constitution is not clear on. What do you think their purpose is?

Nope only supposed to judge cases based on what is in the constitution not make up shit.

So, guns aren't protected in the Constitution...in fact, the term "gun" isn't in the Constitution...and any Supreme Court that says 'gun ownership is protected' is just making up shit.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[jillian]

[That's correct, It's vague when it comes to many constitutional questions, it's why the supreme court defined it further to mean that there is a wall that the founders were too negligent to build.

The Supreme Court doesn't have that authority.

actually they do.

once again, go read marbury v madison.

tell me, without the Court, what defines the term unreasonable in "unreasonable search and seizure"?

you're right... nothing.

same is true for 'general welfare', 'commerce', and 'speech'.

i hope that helps.

 

[Immanuel]

I haven't read most of this thread so maybe this has already been said.

I realize that both sides do it and that is no excuse, but it is funny in cases like this about the lengths people will go to deceive others about what a person says.

In this case, Rick Santorum did not say that the separation of Church and State makes him want to throw up. He very clearly stated that the notion that people of faith have no role in the public square makes him want to throw there is a big difference between what he actually said and what the title of this thread and the op want you to believe.

Rick Santorum on Sunday took on separation of church and state.

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute," he told 'This Week' host George Stephanopoulos. "The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country...to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up."

Emphasis added

I have to say that the idea that some on the left either knowingly or not pass on to the rest of us that people of faith should not be allowed to participate in government makes me want to throw up too. It is as disgusting to me as making the claim that atheist or muslims should not be allowed to participate in politics.

Immie

 

[jillian]

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.

Damn you really are one dumb ****.

really, chica? what was dumb about his observation?

any presidential candidate who thinks the president is a "snob" because he thinks everyone should ASPIRE to higher education, and who hates education because he thinks it makes kids irreligious, and who thnks Griswold should be reversed because contraception should be outlawed (at least his brand of religion says so) has no business holding the office he seeks because he has no concept of the constitution.

 

[Leweman]

Sure they do, it's what they are there for, to answer constitutional questions that the actual constitution is not clear on. What do you think their purpose is?

Nope only supposed to judge cases based on what is in the constitution not make up shit.

So, guns aren't protected in the Constitution...in fact, the term "gun" isn't in the Constitution...and any Supreme Court that says 'gun ownership is protected' is just making up shit.

Thanks for clearing that up.

arms (Noun) - Weapons and ammunition; armaments

 

[BluePhantom]

The other thing to keep in mind here is that as much as people of strong faith THINK they want a government where religion is a legitimate basis upon which to make law or set policy, they ought to be very careful about what they wish for. While the citizens of the United States have historically been predominantly Christian, that is not to say that will always be the case. Let me provide an extreme example to make a point. If the day were ever to come that Islam became the most common religion of the citizenry and we have previously opened the door to allow religion to be a legitimate basis upon which to make law and set policy, then we have lost our Constitutional argument against the imposition of Sharia Law.

Granted, it's an extreme example, but remember....the moment we lose our vigilance is the moment when what we oppose begins to become reality. Government policy based upon religious conviction or personal moral code is great so long as you (by "you" I don't mean you specifically but in general) are in the majority....it's when you look around and suddenly you realize that the landscape has changed that you might regret your previous position.

 

[Immanuel]

The other thing to keep in mind here is that as much as people of strong faith THINK they want a government where religion is a legitimate basis upon which to make law or set policy, they ought to be very careful about what they wish for. While the citizens of the United States have historically been predominantly Christian, that is not to say that will always be the case. Let me provide an extreme example to make a point. If the day were ever to come that Islam became the most common religion of the citizenry and we have previously opened the door to allow religion to be a legitimate basis upon which to make law and set policy, then we have lost our Constitutional argument against the imposition of Sharia Law.

Granted, it's an extreme example, but remember....the moment we lose our vigilance is the moment when what we oppose begins to become reality. Government policy based upon religious conviction or personal moral code is great so long as you (by "you" I don't mean you specifically but in general) are in the majority....it's when you look around and suddenly you realize that the landscape has changed that you might regret your previous position.

I honestly as a person of faith do not want my church or any church making policy of law. Nor do I want the state to make any policies of the church.

What I do want is to be given the right if I so desire to participate through voice and vote in the decisions of this country AND if I so desire (which I do not) to run for office and not have to lie and say I am not a person of faith.

Immie

 

[BluePhantom]

The other thing to keep in mind here is that as much as people of strong faith THINK they want a government where religion is a legitimate basis upon which to make law or set policy, they ought to be very careful about what they wish for. While the citizens of the United States have historically been predominantly Christian, that is not to say that will always be the case. Let me provide an extreme example to make a point. If the day were ever to come that Islam became the most common religion of the citizenry and we have previously opened the door to allow religion to be a legitimate basis upon which to make law and set policy, then we have lost our Constitutional argument against the imposition of Sharia Law.

Granted, it's an extreme example, but remember....the moment we lose our vigilance is the moment when what we oppose begins to become reality. Government policy based upon religious conviction or personal moral code is great so long as you (by "you" I don't mean you specifically but in general) are in the majority....it's when you look around and suddenly you realize that the landscape has changed that you might regret your previous position.

I honestly as a person of faith do not want my church or any church making policy of law. Nor do I want the state to make any policies of the church.

What I do want is to be given the right if I so desire to participate through voice and vote in the decisions of this country AND if I so desire (which I do not) to run for office and not have to lie and say I am not a person of faith.

Immie

I would be happy to champion your right to do so. I personally don't have an issue with a person of faith holding public office, but I always keep in mind that the power to forbid also brings to power to force. I favor as little government intervention in our lives as possible so if we give the government the power to say a person cannot have an abortion (again just as an example) then we have said that they have a legitimate cause to make that decision for us and they may change their mind at some point. So when we say, for example, the government has a legitimate right to tell people they cannot have an abortion we also empower government to say that people must have an abortion. Again; an extreme and highly unlikely example, but who can tell the future? Limits on children exist in China and as such they can certainly happen here if the time comes where the citizenry becomes alarmed about overpopulation.

But I agree with you that personal faith should not eliminate someone from government office and in reality there is no way to avoid that faith (or lack thereof) from influencing their decision making to some degree. BUT....we have to continuously ensure that government policy is based upon something other than religious or moral conviction or we are opening a VERY dangerous door.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Speaking of Santorum,

Best. Headline. Ever.

"Poll: Santorum comes from behind in Alabama three-way."

Poll: Santorum comes from behind in Alabama three-way | Second Front

 

[Immanuel]

The other thing to keep in mind here is that as much as people of strong faith THINK they want a government where religion is a legitimate basis upon which to make law or set policy, they ought to be very careful about what they wish for. While the citizens of the United States have historically been predominantly Christian, that is not to say that will always be the case. Let me provide an extreme example to make a point. If the day were ever to come that Islam became the most common religion of the citizenry and we have previously opened the door to allow religion to be a legitimate basis upon which to make law and set policy, then we have lost our Constitutional argument against the imposition of Sharia Law.

Granted, it's an extreme example, but remember....the moment we lose our vigilance is the moment when what we oppose begins to become reality. Government policy based upon religious conviction or personal moral code is great so long as you (by "you" I don't mean you specifically but in general) are in the majority....it's when you look around and suddenly you realize that the landscape has changed that you might regret your previous position.

I honestly as a person of faith do not want my church or any church making policy of law. Nor do I want the state to make any policies of the church.

What I do want is to be given the right if I so desire to participate through voice and vote in the decisions of this country AND if I so desire (which I do not) to run for office and not have to lie and say I am not a person of faith.

Immie

I would be happy to champion your right to do so. I personally don't have an issue with a person of faith holding public office, but I always keep in mind that the power to forbid also brings to power to force. I favor as little government intervention in our lives as possible so if we give the government the power to say a person cannot have an abortion (again just as an example) then we have said that they have a legitimate cause to make that decision for us and they may change their mind at some point. So when we say, for example, the government has a legitimate right to tell people they cannot have an abortion we also empower government to say that people must have an abortion. Again; an extreme and highly unlikely example, but who can tell the future? Limits on children exist in China and as such they can certainly happen here if the time comes where the citizenry becomes alarmed about overpopulation.

But I agree with you that personal faith should not eliminate someone from government office and in reality there is no way to avoid that faith (or lack thereof) from influencing their decision making to some degree. BUT....we have to continuously ensure that government policy is based upon something other than religious or moral conviction or we are opening a VERY dangerous door.

For the record, although I am 100% opposed to abortion, I do not believe that overturning Roe is the answer to the abortion problem. 1) overturning it would only send it to the states. That solves nothing. 2) even if by force of law we could stop women from having abortions, they are going to get them regardless and with the medical/medicinal knowledge we now have we wouldn't even know about it in the vast majority of cases.

Abortion needs to be defeated in the hearts and minds of our citizens. It shouldn't be acceptable simply as the convenient birth control method it is, but all of this is better left to another thread and I have said too much here.

Immie