If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   The separation of church and state - one of the core tenets of American democracy - makes Rick Santorum "want to throw up"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 519
    More: Sick, American Democracy, Rick Santorum  
•       •       •

16557 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Feb 2012 at 8:27 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



519 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-27 10:21:41 AM  
olddeegee

Conservatives hate when anybody attacks the Constitution. Except when they do it.

Still waiting for you to post the Article, Section, or Amendment that states "Separation of church and state".

Hint: It's not there. The phrase came from a letter from Thomas Jefferson in a 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists (decades after the USC was adopted. Do you really want to start using extra-constitutional writings as our founding documents now? If so I'd be happy to challenge you with a lot of other letters and writings the Founders/Signers produced. Protip: Letters "ain't" law.

This is what I find so hilarious about the moon-bat positions. Actual tenets of the Founding Documents are "fluid" and "flexible and outright denied, yet any off hand statement is an "Undeniable tenet".

The left's hypocrisy is obvious.
 
2012-02-27 10:30:16 AM  
this is fark. the far-left lunatic fringe of the progressive party, where mother theresa and ronald reagan are history's greatest monsters.

they shun anything that is good, like cockroaches scurry when the light is switched on.
 
2012-02-27 10:31:43 AM  

proteus_b: they go to school on easter and christmas there?


Well to be fair, those are no longer really Christian holidays any more. Christmas in particular is a festival of Mammon.
 
2012-02-27 10:36:03 AM  

colon_pow: this is fark. the far-left lunatic fringe of the progressive party, where mother theresa and ronald reagan are history's greatest monsters.

they shun anything that is good, like cockroaches scurry when the light is switched on.


Homophobia and denying prenatal healthcare are somehow "good"? I understand a certain degree of trolling is your MO, but damnation at some point, don't you just feel dirty typing this tripe?
 
2012-02-27 10:50:01 AM  
Who cares what Rick Insanatorum thinks? I mean really. The idiot is finished. He got his two weeks in the spotlight, just as all the rest of the GOP candidates have. And, like them, he has no chance of getting the nomination. Romney is the GOP's man this year and they know he has almost zero chance of defeating Barack Obama. The GOP is just going through the motions this election. They will focus their energy and money on picking up seats in Congress.
 
2012-02-27 11:21:40 AM  

hubiestubert: The sad thing is, the separation of church and state is to protect religion.


That's what these idiots don't understand.

As I said above, people like Santorum imagine that if they chip away at separation of church and state, that their religion will get control of the government.

They can't (or won't) imagine that likely the reverse will be true instead.

Separation of Church and State is what protects religious freedom in this country. Some religious clerics and ministers understand this, but they are unfortunately in the minority.
 
2012-02-27 11:23:16 AM  

OnlyM3: This is what I find so hilarious about the moon-bat positions. Actual tenets of the Founding Documents are "fluid" and "flexible and outright denied, yet any off hand statement is an "Undeniable tenet".


"A perfect all-knowing magic man in the sky who made everything with magic wrote a perfect magic book two thousand years ago and we should base our whole government on this!"

"Uhh... sorry, I don't believe you."

"Crazy lefty moonbat!"
 
2012-02-27 11:28:19 AM  

Weaver95: Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers himself, coined the phrase 'separation of church and state'. it is demonstrably, quotably, VERIFIABLY the vision of the Founding Fathers that there SHOULD be a wall between religion and government. This cannot be any more clear - Jefferson himself wrote on this subject extensively, and his latters are extremely well documented and commented upon. Santorum is either a profoundly stupid man, or he's an exceptionally poor liar.


Like others of his ilk, there's no reason he can't be both

i887.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-27 11:44:40 AM  

hubiestubert: colon_pow: this is fark. the far-left lunatic fringe of the progressive party, where mother theresa and ronald reagan are history's greatest monsters.

they shun anything that is good, like cockroaches scurry when the light is switched on.

Homophobia and denying prenatal healthcare are somehow "good"? I understand a certain degree of trolling is your MO, but damnation at some point, don't you just feel dirty typing this tripe?


some people don't see gay marriage as a good thing. as for denying prenatal healthcare, that is just your typical scare-mongering.

don't be a monger.
 
2012-02-27 11:47:52 AM  

MrKevvy: OnlyM3: This is what I find so hilarious about the moon-bat positions. Actual tenets of the Founding Documents are "fluid" and "flexible and outright denied, yet any off hand statement is an "Undeniable tenet".

"A perfect all-knowing magic man in the sky who made everything with magic wrote a perfect magic book two thousand years ago and we should base our whole government on this!"

"Uhh... sorry, I don't believe you."

"Crazy lefty moonbat!"


your response to the statement you quoted is a bit of a non-sequitur. you weren't captain of the debate team were you...
 
2012-02-27 11:49:04 AM  

colon_pow: some people don't see gay marriage as a good thing.


If you don't think gay marriage is a good thing, then don't marry another dude.

Problem solved.
 
2012-02-27 11:54:58 AM  

Dracolich:
"I don't believe."


"Don't you think he looks tired?"
 
2012-02-27 12:01:06 PM  

colon_pow: hubiestubert: colon_pow: this is fark. the far-left lunatic fringe of the progressive party, where mother theresa and ronald reagan are history's greatest monsters.

they shun anything that is good, like cockroaches scurry when the light is switched on.

Homophobia and denying prenatal healthcare are somehow "good"? I understand a certain degree of trolling is your MO, but damnation at some point, don't you just feel dirty typing this tripe?

some people don't see gay marriage as a good thing. as for denying prenatal healthcare, that is just your typical scare-mongering.


They will never be required to marry folks in their own churches. They don't have to like it, and they can take care of their own. Demanding that everyone else follow their interpretations of Leviticus is about on par with demanding that every male child in the US have a bris.

Likewise, don't be dense. You're brighter than that, and shilling like this is beneath you.
 
2012-02-27 12:04:13 PM  

colon_pow: hubiestubert: colon_pow: this is fark. the far-left lunatic fringe of the progressive party, where mother theresa and ronald reagan are history's greatest monsters.

they shun anything that is good, like cockroaches scurry when the light is switched on.

Homophobia and denying prenatal healthcare are somehow "good"? I understand a certain degree of trolling is your MO, but damnation at some point, don't you just feel dirty typing this tripe?

some people don't see gay marriage as a good thing. as for denying prenatal healthcare, that is just your typical scare-mongering.

don't be a monger.


And some people don't see christians trying to micro-manage everyone's lives based on their holy book as a good thing.
 
2012-02-27 12:04:37 PM  
and yet i still cant find that in the constitution. I see something about congress making no laws favoring one religion over another but nothing about "separation of church and state". I must have an old version or something.
 
2012-02-27 12:12:55 PM  

Joe Blowme: and yet i still cant find that in the constitution. I see something about congress making no laws favoring one religion over another but nothing about "separation of church and state". I must have an old version or something.


That issue has been covered multiple times in this thread already. Read it again, slowly, and you might understand it. Then again, maybe you won't...

You probably believe the Constitution protects your owning guns don't you? Hint: Guns aren't mentioned, just as that phrase isn't mentioned. Just as the SCOTUS has upheld that you can own a gub, they have upheld the line between church and state. Quit lying to yourself.
 
2012-02-27 12:13:56 PM  
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."

- John F. Kennedy

"FARK THAT NOISE! THEOCRACY FOR ALL!"

- Rick Santorum
 
2012-02-27 12:18:10 PM  

Bevets: When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Zorach v. Clauson 343 U.S. 306 (1952)


MrKevvy:

"In the beginning was Nothing and Nothing created Everything and we should base our whole government on this!"
 
2012-02-27 12:19:55 PM  

hubiestubert: colon_pow: hubiestubert: colon_pow: this is fark. the far-left lunatic fringe of the progressive party, where mother theresa and ronald reagan are history's greatest monsters.

they shun anything that is good, like cockroaches scurry when the light is switched on.

Homophobia and denying prenatal healthcare are somehow "good"? I understand a certain degree of trolling is your MO, but damnation at some point, don't you just feel dirty typing this tripe?

some people don't see gay marriage as a good thing. as for denying prenatal healthcare, that is just your typical scare-mongering.

They will never be required to marry folks in their own churches. They don't have to like it, and they can take care of their own. Demanding that everyone else follow their interpretations of Leviticus is about on par with demanding that every male child in the US have a bris.

Likewise, don't be dense. You're brighter than that, and shilling like this is beneath you.


I said "some people" don't see gay marriage as a good thing. I'm not here to to make a judgement on the joy and beauty of buttsecks, just making an observation on the populace as a whole.
 
2012-02-27 12:28:58 PM  

Bevets:
"In the beginning was Nothing and Nothing created Everything and we should base our whole government on this!"


Things can come from nothing.

If a supreme being is required to explain the universe, then where did the supreme being come from?
The usual answer is that the supreme being was always there.
If something more complex than the universe can exist eternally without being made... then why can't the universe itself?

I'm just wasting my time.
 
2012-02-27 12:29:45 PM  

KierzanDax: "..he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes..."


farm8.staticflickr.com
 
2012-02-27 12:29:56 PM  

truthseeker2083: Joe Blowme: and yet i still cant find that in the constitution. I see something about congress making no laws favoring one religion over another but nothing about "separation of church and state". I must have an old version or something.

That issue has been covered multiple times in this thread already. Read it again, slowly, and you might understand it. Then again, maybe you won't...

You probably believe the Constitution protects your owning guns don't you? Hint: Guns aren't mentioned, just as that phrase isn't mentioned. Just as the SCOTUS has upheld that you can own a gub, they have upheld the line between church and state. Quit lying to yourself.


I know of the interpretation, i'm just saying it is not in there. People use it to do stupid things like restrict freedom of speech when it has to do with god. do you know they actually prayed in schools durrig the founders time and not once did they go ape shiat and sue or fight to have it stopped? Not saying i want prayer in school so keep the sand out of your crotch, just saying if that is what they meant then they surely would have put a stop to it then right?

/you comparing it with the second amendment is weak
//the 2nd garuntees the rest
 
2012-02-27 12:34:08 PM  

Bevets: That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Zorach v. Clauson 343 U.S. 306 (1952)


This is just wrong. The government not showing preference to any religion is not the same as the government promoting atheism.

Secularism isn't the same thing as atheism, despite the best efforts of religious conservatives to conflate the two things. Secularism merely means that the government stays out of religious matters (to the benefit of religious believers as much as anyone).

Secularists have no problem with religious displays in "the public square." If you want to buy a billboard or a radio ad with a religious message and broadcast it to the public, knock yourself out. If you want a nativity scene or a cross or a ten commandments on your front lawn facing a busy public street, have at it. The only (only one!) thing that we ask is that you not demand that these religious messages be made by the government (on government-property such as courthouses, by public school teachers, etc.). That's it. That's not an endorsement of atheism.

Stop confusing "in the public square" with "by the government."
 
2012-02-27 12:36:41 PM  

truthseeker2083: Just as the SCOTUS has upheld that you can own a gub, they have upheld the line between church and state. Quit lying to yourself.


img823.imageshack.us

"Does this look like 'gub' or 'gun'?"
 
2012-02-27 12:40:35 PM  

Joe Blowme: truthseeker2083: Joe Blowme: and yet i still cant find that in the constitution. I see something about congress making no laws favoring one religion over another but nothing about "separation of church and state". I must have an old version or something.

That issue has been covered multiple times in this thread already. Read it again, slowly, and you might understand it. Then again, maybe you won't...

You probably believe the Constitution protects your owning guns don't you? Hint: Guns aren't mentioned, just as that phrase isn't mentioned. Just as the SCOTUS has upheld that you can own a gub, they have upheld the line between church and state. Quit lying to yourself.

I know of the interpretation, i'm just saying it is not in there. People use it to do stupid things like restrict freedom of speech when it has to do with god. do you know they actually prayed in schools durrig the founders time and not once did they go ape shiat and sue or fight to have it stopped? Not saying i want prayer in school so keep the sand out of your crotch, just saying if that is what they meant then they surely would have put a stop to it then right?

/you comparing it with the second amendment is weak
//the 2nd garuntees the rest


Comparing it to the 2nd isn't weak just because you don't like it. You talked about the phrasing not being there, I countered with another phrase not being there. Back when it was written, they may have prayed in school, but they also relied on leeches in medicine, should we do away with modern techniques? We've changed a lot since then, just because certain politicians and those that support them don't want to get with the times doesn't mean we should all be held back.

Maybe you should 'get the sand out of your crotch' and realize that we aren't fighting what happened in the past, but trying to protect the future from christian nutbags ruining what we have.
 
2012-02-27 12:42:23 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: truthseeker2083: Just as the SCOTUS has upheld that you can own a gub, they have upheld the line between church and state. Quit lying to yourself.

[img823.imageshack.us image 525x352]

"Does this look like 'gub' or 'gun'?"


My fingers are too big for this small phone... I hate this phone!
 
2012-02-27 12:44:43 PM  
America... land of tolerance and freedom...

Smithsonian (new window)
 
2012-02-27 12:46:36 PM  
 
2012-02-27 12:48:27 PM  

truthseeker2083: Joe Blowme: truthseeker2083: Joe Blowme: and yet i still cant find that in the constitution. I see something about congress making no laws favoring one religion over another but nothing about "separation of church and state". I must have an old version or something.

That issue has been covered multiple times in this thread already. Read it again, slowly, and you might understand it. Then again, maybe you won't...

You probably believe the Constitution protects your owning guns don't you? Hint: Guns aren't mentioned, just as that phrase isn't mentioned. Just as the SCOTUS has upheld that you can own a gub, they have upheld the line between church and state. Quit lying to yourself.

I know of the interpretation, i'm just saying it is not in there. People use it to do stupid things like restrict freedom of speech when it has to do with god. do you know they actually prayed in schools durrig the founders time and not once did they go ape shiat and sue or fight to have it stopped? Not saying i want prayer in school so keep the sand out of your crotch, just saying if that is what they meant then they surely would have put a stop to it then right?

/you comparing it with the second amendment is weak
//the 2nd garuntees the rest

Comparing it to the 2nd isn't weak just because you don't like it. You talked about the phrasing not being there, I countered with another phrase not being there. Back when it was written, they may have prayed in school, but they also relied on leeches in medicine, should we do away with modern techniques? We've changed a lot since then, just because certain politicians and those that support them don't want to get with the times doesn't mean we should all be held back.

Maybe you should 'get the sand out of your crotch' and realize that we aren't fighting what happened in the past, but trying to protect the future from christian nutbags ruining what we have.


leeches? really dude? apples and oranges my friend. If they did not want it to include guns they would have rounded them all up too but dont let fact get in your way just because they are too old. Also, i'm not fighting anything, just making an observation you know like the first amendment says i can? Or is that too old too?
 
2012-02-27 12:58:15 PM  

MrKevvy: Things can come from nothing.


Kinda negates that whole theory about "matter cannot be created or destroyed" thingy.
 
2012-02-27 01:01:09 PM  

Joe Blowme: truthseeker2083: Joe Blowme: truthseeker2083: Joe Blowme: and yet i still cant find that in the constitution. I see something about congress making no laws favoring one religion over another but nothing about "separation of church and state". I must have an old version or something.

That issue has been covered multiple times in this thread already. Read it again, slowly, and you might understand it. Then again, maybe you won't...

You probably believe the Constitution protects your owning guns don't you? Hint: Guns aren't mentioned, just as that phrase isn't mentioned. Just as the SCOTUS has upheld that you can own a gub, they have upheld the line between church and state. Quit lying to yourself.

I know of the interpretation, i'm just saying it is not in there. People use it to do stupid things like restrict freedom of speech when it has to do with god. do you know they actually prayed in schools durrig the founders time and not once did they go ape shiat and sue or fight to have it stopped? Not saying i want prayer in school so keep the sand out of your crotch, just saying if that is what they meant then they surely would have put a stop to it then right?

/you comparing it with the second amendment is weak
//the 2nd garuntees the rest

Comparing it to the 2nd isn't weak just because you don't like it. You talked about the phrasing not being there, I countered with another phrase not being there. Back when it was written, they may have prayed in school, but they also relied on leeches in medicine, should we do away with modern techniques? We've changed a lot since then, just because certain politicians and those that support them don't want to get with the times doesn't mean we should all be held back.

Maybe you should 'get the sand out of your crotch' and realize that we aren't fighting what happened in the past, but trying to protect the future from christian nutbags ruining what we have.

leeches? really dude? apples and oranges my friend. If they did not wan ...


Yes leeches. I was comparing one dumb practice with another. I didn't say that guns weren't protected, or shouldn't be, but was using the lack of the word 'gun' to counter you not seeing the phrase. Just because the phrase isn't there doesn't mean the spirit isn't there. Claiming the phrase isn't there distracts from the spirit of the law, as it's been upheld, just like the 2nd. If you think what I was saying was stupid, maybe you should relook at your statement as well. Never said you shouldn't be able to say what you want, but hey, however far you want to move the discussion away from phrases not being in the constitution is ok with me. That's all I was responding to.
 
2012-02-27 01:06:19 PM  

Doc Daneeka: They can't (or won't) imagine that likely the reverse will be true instead.

Separation of Church and State is what protects religious freedom in this country. Some religious clerics and ministers understand this, but they are unfortunately in the minority.


from the Smithsonian article linked to above...

In newly independent America, there was a crazy quilt of state laws regarding religion. In Massachusetts, only Christians were allowed to hold public office, and Catholics were allowed to do so only after renouncing papal authority. In 1777, New York State's constitution banned Catholics from public office (and would do so until 1806). In Maryland, Catholics had full civil rights, but Jews did not. Delaware required an oath affirming belief in the Trinity. Several states, including Massachusetts and South Carolina, had official, state-supported churches.

In 1779, as Virginia's governor, Thomas Jefferson had drafted a bill that guaranteed legal equality for citizens of all religions-including those of no religion-in the state. It was around then that Jefferson famously wrote, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." But Jefferson's plan did not advance-until after Patrick ("Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death") Henry introduced a bill in 1784 calling for state support for "teachers of the Christian religion."

Future President James Madison stepped into the breach. In a carefully argued essay titled "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," the soon-to-be father of the Constitution eloquently laid out reasons why the state had no business supporting Christian instruction. Signed by some 2,000 Virginians, Madison's argument became a fundamental piece of American political philosophy, a ringing endorsement of the secular state that "should be as familiar to students of American history as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution," as Susan Jacoby has written in Freethinkers, her excellent history of American secularism.

Among Madison's 15 points was his declaration that "the Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every...man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an inalienable right."

Madison also made a point that any believer of any religion should understand: that the government sanction of a religion was, in essence, a threat to religion. "Who does not see," he wrote, "that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?"



Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-True-Histor y-of-Religious-Tolerance.html#ixzz1nbeESs9r
 
2012-02-27 01:11:16 PM  

Joe Blowme: and yet i still cant find that in the constitution. I see something about congress making no laws favoring one religion over another but nothing about "separation of church and state". I must have an old version or something.


Cutting back to your initial post since this is a pretty easy one to address without denigrating into discussions of leeches and the Second Amendment.

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not exist in the Constitution but the definition of "separation of church and state" does. You know, just like the definition of a word in the dictionary does not contain the word itself.
 
2012-02-27 01:22:55 PM  

Doc Daneeka: Bevets: That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Zorach v. Clauson 343 U.S. 306 (1952)

This is just wrong. The government not showing preference to any religion is not the same as the government promoting atheism.

Secularism isn't the same thing as atheism, despite the best efforts of religious conservatives to conflate the two things. Secularism merely means that the government stays out of religious matters (to the benefit of religious believers as much as anyone).

Secularists have no problem with religious displays in "the public square." If you want to buy a billboard or a radio ad with a religious message and broadcast it to the public, knock yourself out. If you want a nativity scene or a cross or a ten commandments on your front lawn facing a busy public street, have at it. The only (only one!) thing that we ask is that you not demand that these religious messages be made by the government (on government-property such as courthouses, by public school teachers, etc.). That's it. That's not an endorsement of atheism.

Stop confusing "in the public square" with "by the government."


The thing is people like Santorum and his supports aren't confusing the public square with the government. When they say public square they really do mean the government and they are consciously being deceitful by saying public square to try to lull everybody into a false sense of security while they quietly try to implement religious laws and move this country towards a state religion.
 
2012-02-27 01:25:50 PM  

ongbok: The thing is people like Santorum and his supports aren't confusing the public square with the government. When they say public square they really do mean the government and they are consciously being deceitful by saying public square to try to lull everybody into a false sense of security while they quietly try to implement religious laws and move this country towards a state religion.


you should hide under your bed.
 
2012-02-27 01:34:08 PM  

colon_pow: ongbok: The thing is people like Santorum and his supports aren't confusing the public square with the government. When they say public square they really do mean the government and they are consciously being deceitful by saying public square to try to lull everybody into a false sense of security while they quietly try to implement religious laws and move this country towards a state religion.

you should hide under your bed.


What's untrue about that statement? Have not the christians repeatedly stated that this is their goal, and tried their hardest to make it happen? Look at the past year or so and you can see just how far they are pushing this country into their brand of religious law.
 
2012-02-27 01:42:31 PM  
That's because Rick is a theocrat, an idiot who didn't even understand what JFK was saying, and a serial liar.
 
2012-02-27 01:43:17 PM  

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: crabsno termites: will someone explain to me why, when the constitution says "regarding the "establishment" of religion" (emphasis mine), we don't TAX THE farkING BEJESUS out of those clowns?

So you're saying if we waive the separation thing, we can tax the f*ck out of the churches?...hmmm...give me a minute...I'M THINKING DAMMIT!


Think about what "establishment" means: the entity, or the creation of an entity. I see nothing that says other than that the gov't may not create, encourage or discourage the creation of a religion. That does not preclude taxation of any existing or newly created entity while maintaining the separation of church and state. All hinges on the definition of "establishment" was intended (a la "I did not have sex with that woman"). cheers.
 
2012-02-27 01:44:07 PM  

patrick767: That's because Rick is a theocrat, an idiot who didn't even understand what JFK was saying, and a serial liar.


No, he knew exactly what JFK was saying. And he vehemently disagrees with him.
 
2012-02-27 02:05:09 PM  

colon_pow: some people don't see gay marriage as a good thing.


Such people should have every right to not be gay married, and I would personally fight to defend that right.

If they're just preventing other people from getting gay married, then they're just being jerks. Fark those guys.


as for denying prenatal healthcare, that is just your typical scare-mongering.

don't be a monger.


Prenatal healthcare creates $1.49 in savings for every $1 spent. It's fiscally responsible and makes America stronger.
 
2012-02-27 02:10:00 PM  

Weaver95: En0ch_The_Red: I don't want to live under a Christian theocracy any more than I want to live under a Muslim, Jewish, Bhuddist, Wiccan, or any theocracy. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.

I wonder what a wiccan theocracy would even look like...


Somalia. I say this as a Wiccan we can't even organize a potluck theme or keep the electricity on in our buildings. There's no way we could effectively run a country. Most of us have the personality of cats and we all fight with each other constantly.
 
2012-02-27 02:11:49 PM  

Ambivalence: Weaver95: Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers himself, coined the phrase 'separation of church and state'. it is demonstrably, quotably, VERIFIABLY the vision of the Founding Fathers that there SHOULD be a wall between religion and government. This cannot be any more clear - Jefferson himself wrote on this subject extensively, and his latters are extremely well documented and commented upon. Santorum is either a profoundly stupid man, or he's an exceptionally poor liar.

While you are right that Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers believed freedom of religion and "separation of church and state" were foundational principles for their newly created nation, that is not to say it was a universally held conviction among ALL founding fathers.

But, ultimately, it is the founding conviction that has stood the test of time.

It is disingenuous to say the "founding fathers" wanted one thing or another as if there was perfect accord among all the colonies. The truth is that then, as today, there was a very diverse range of viewpoints on a very wide range of topics.

It is also disingenuous to invoke the founding fathers as justification of one viewpoint over another as if the last 200+ years have seen no progress or expansion of liberties and movement towards equality. It is incredible that a major political party wants so dearly to go back 50, 100, 200 years to days that are long gone. How can we expect to live in, much less compete in, in a modern world where women are second class citizens? Where racial bigotry is justification for egregious civil rights violations? Where everyone is expected to revere Jesus Christ, but not even pretend to follow his teachings?

This is the 21st century. We cannot solve the problems of today by taking up the problems of yesteryear.


Jesus realized that a religion was a crappy basis for government. How conveniently theocrats forget "render unto Ceasar".
 
2012-02-27 02:15:05 PM  
"Separation of Church and State" is a Christian concept.
 
2012-02-27 02:26:52 PM  

truthseeker2083: colon_pow: ongbok: The thing is people like Santorum and his supports aren't confusing the public square with the government. When they say public square they really do mean the government and they are consciously being deceitful by saying public square to try to lull everybody into a false sense of security while they quietly try to implement religious laws and move this country towards a state religion.

you should hide under your bed.

What's untrue about that statement? Have not the christians repeatedly stated that this is their goal, and tried their hardest to make it happen? Look at the past year or so and you can see just how far they are pushing this country into their brand of religious law.


you should hide under his bed with him.
 
2012-02-27 02:31:40 PM  

Colin O'Scopy: You, my friend, are the only conservative I've seen on Fark whose hand I'd like to shake, and with whom I'd like to have a beer.


Believe me, there's all kinds of us out there, and we've let our party be taken over by absolute wingnuts. We need a moderate person who can speak to the common man, whose priorities don't include forcing religion and an "us against them" mentality down everyone's throats.

ansius: I'm just hoping the Republican field this time around is so awful because the ones with some sort of a clue thought they'd leave the field in 2012 to the incumbent (who has a pretty big advantage) and keep their powder dry until 2016.

It's a small hope I have.


I really liked where Huntsman was going, but he (probably wisely) dropped out early. The question is, will the powers-that-be allow a moderate?
 
2012-02-27 02:34:09 PM  

Joe Blowme: and yet i still cant find that in the constitution. I see something about congress making no laws favoring one religion over another but nothing about "separation of church and state". I must have an old version or something.


there's nothing in the constitution about your right to own a glock 17 either. just something vague about the right to bear arms. then again, maybe i have an old version or something.

we do have, however, a letter from thomas jefferson to the danbury baptists in which he coins the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in specific reference to the 1st amendment's religion clause. plus, again, 200+ years of settled law.
 
2012-02-27 02:35:24 PM  
What school did Santorum attend, where he didn't learn about the revolutionary war? How people flocked to the colonies to avoid the RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION that was driven by the fact that church and state were almost one-in-the-same?
 
2012-02-27 02:40:16 PM  
What really gets me about the Right is that they rant on and on about how Obama wants to fundamentally change America and throw the constitution in the garbage, when it is them who are blatantly trying to revise history and change America into something that the Founding Fathers fought to avoid.
 
2012-02-27 02:50:02 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Kinda negates that whole theory about "matter cannot be created or destroyed" thingy.


Not chemically, but it's what nuclear reactors/bombs do.

colon_pow: you should hide under his bed with him.


You know how I know you weren't a debate team captain either?
 
2012-02-27 02:50:53 PM  

colon_pow: truthseeker2083: colon_pow: ongbok: The thing is people like Santorum and his supports aren't confusing the public square with the government. When they say public square they really do mean the government and they are consciously being deceitful by saying public square to try to lull everybody into a false sense of security while they quietly try to implement religious laws and move this country towards a state religion.

you should hide under your bed.

What's untrue about that statement? Have not the christians repeatedly stated that this is their goal, and tried their hardest to make it happen? Look at the past year or so and you can see just how far they are pushing this country into their brand of religious law.

you should hide under his bed with him.


So no answer as to how it was wrong? Or how I was wrong? Interesting.

Hiding under the bed won't stop the dominionists from doing their damage. Just look at the tripe Santorum and his ilk are spewing.
 
Displayed 50 of 519 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report