In a conference call with members of right-wing pastor E.W. Jackson’s STAND America that was posted online today, former senator Rick Santorum disputed the existence of the separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution, dismissing it as a Communist idea that has no place in America.
A listener on the call told Santorum that “a number of the things that the far left, a.k.a. the Democrat [sic] Party, and the president is pushing for and accomplishing actually accomplishes a number of the tenets of ‘The Communist Manifesto,’ including the amnesty, the elevation of pornography, homosexuality, gay marriage, voter fraud, open borders, mass self-importation of illegal immigrants and things of that nature.” The likely presidential candidate replied that “the words ‘separation of church and state’ is not in the U.S. Constitution, but it was in the constitution of the former Soviet Union. That’s where it very, very comfortably sat, not in ours.”
Wow! And here I thought there were limits to how Christian revisionists could rewrite American history.
Of course as Right Wing Watch points out Thomas Jefferson himself referred to the separation of church and state in an 1802 letter:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
The intention of the founding fathers seems fairly clear. That is unless you are Rick Santorum of course, and you refuse to accept facts which will not support your hypothesis. Or your faith.
As I posted on another blog:
ReplyDeleteNo, No, Santorum is right. Someone please let him know we'll be implementing Sharia immediately, and thank him for clarifying what the Founders REALLY intended.
As we all know, the First Amendment has governed our people for more than 200 years. It reads thusly:
ReplyDelete"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Thus, the U.S. government neither establishes a religion or prohibits citizens from practicing their religion.
The Founders were of such varied backgrounds that they wouldn't have been able to agree on "one" religion, even if they'd wanted to do so.
In the U.S.S.R., all religions were outlawed. Period. Any religious groups or services were held in the strictest secrecy,
with the threat of imprisonment if discovered.
There are just two stark differences between our government and the U.S.S.R.'s -- and, of course, it collapsed in 1989.
Then i'm guessing he also believes in taxing those churches? no separation huh? Then let them pay taxes like all businesses do.
ReplyDeleteGood idea!
DeleteFrothy and Hoohah top the list of irrelevant people who insist in blathering onward long after their cessation of thought.
ReplyDeleteI have read the Communist Manifesto
ReplyDelete...and I don't recall ANYTHING in there about:
pornography, homosexuals, gay marriage, voter fraud, open borders, mass immigration...
I wonder - not only if these buffoons have read the Communist Manifesto - but whether or not they're read their own Bible.
I doubt it.
They don't sound like people who read a whole lot.
Love the Sister Mary Elephant reference teehee
ReplyDeleteGeez, I'm losing my touch, I had to reread everything to find it.
DeleteBut I can still remember the catholic nun that grabbed my cheek and shook it until my brain rattled loose.
Thanks for the Cheech and Chong flashback!
ReplyDeleteComing up to Christmas..... pls. read carefully, Ms. Palin --
ReplyDelete"Pope St. Julius 1 (337-352)
The adoption of the date of December 25 by Pope St. Julius 1 (337-352) was primarily a means by which the early Church could insert itself into many of the popular mid-winter festivals which already were observed by "the pagans" - particularly the celebration of the Roman sun god, Mithras; since 274, under the emperor Aurelian. Rome had celebrated the feast of the "Invincible Sun", Natalis Invicti Solis, on December 25. Other festivals that were appropriated included the Roman Saturnalia celebrations (which changed dates, originally December 17-19, later December 17-23, & finally December 1-23). During this festival, work ceased, gifts were exchanged, & slaves ate with their masters. The festivals of northern Europe, particularly Yule, & also other customs such as yule logs, holly, ivy, mistletoe, candles, evergreens, became part of the Christmas celebration.
Since there was only a loose Christian authority limited by distance & rival power centers at the time, it took centuries before the tradition was adopted geographically:
- Eastern churches began to celebrate Christmas after 375 CE.
- Ireland started in the 5C
- The church in Jerusalem started in the 7C
- Austria, England & Switzerland in the 8C
- Slavic lands in the 9C & 10C "
Good info! What's your source for this?
DeleteI just put the text into Google and found it here:
Deletehttp://bjws.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-winter-solstice-why-is-christmas-on.html
Interesting blog.
Oh, no! The clowns are coming out of the woodwork already. I don't think I can put up with them all through 2015.
ReplyDeleteOff topic: McCain was very upset yesterday that the President selected a Hollywood producer to be the Ambassador to Hungary. He said, "We're about to vote on a totally unqualified individual to be ambassador to a nation which is very important to our national security interest." What's the old saying? Something about people in glass houses not throwing stones? There are days when I don't know who disgusts me more---him or the totally unqualified moron he picked to be his running mate.
ReplyDeleteAnd Ronald Reagan was what again? These guys are all trying to out-crazy each other, and we've still got two years ahead of us on this.
DeleteSantorum has had a break with reality since "walking the Appalachian trail". He should be ashamed, but like all the nut job righties he is insane and incapable of self-reflection.
ReplyDeleteWait... what? You're thinking of Mark Sanford...
DeleteThat was Sanford. Santorum (besides his frothy claim to fame -GOOGLE IT) is a necrophiliac, sleeping with (and forcing his kids to) the corpse of his dead preemie. http://www.democraticunderground.com/100293956
DeleteWound't that make him a NecroPedoPhiliac?
DeleteSo, Santorum wants to be President of the United States but can't read. What a fine role model for religious people everywhere!
ReplyDeleteOne doesn't have to expend much energy to find and read enough writings by our Founders to understand what they were thinking. The American colonies had an official state church - the Church of England - as well as other religious groups. I don't recall which colony it was, but it was considered a victory for Liberalism when the penalty for questioning the Bible as the inerrant word of god was changed to three years in prison instead of a red hot poker through your tongue. We've not only a right, we have an obligation, to remember what repressive scumbags Christians were for centuries. And their reason was simply that there was no one to stop them from following their "moral guidance." The changes in their behavior didn't result from any enlightened state of consciousness on their part - it changed because people, like our Founders, stood up to them and smacked them down. It happened to them again, in a social context, in the 1960s, which explains why their bitter vitriol about those damned hippies (in time, meaning any Liberal) hasn't faded very much. I think it 's rather casually overlooked how anti-church the protection of free speech was. That was nearly as much of a smack down as the establishment of a secular gov't.
ReplyDeleteIt's not at all shocking to hear the crap religious conservatives spew - they've been doing it forever. It is shocking when Obama and Hilary Clinton take actions that align them with religious zealots bent on repressing free speech in the name of religion rather than protecting it as a fundamental American value. If you're hearing echoes of GW Bush who proclaimed that atheists can't be patriotic Americans and that a Fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie for writing The Satanic Verses "didn't involve any American values," then you're paying attention.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/06/blasphemy-american-style-obama-administration-supports-resolution-on-limiting-free-speech-to-bar-criticism-of-religion/
And that's an old blog, when Obama and HR Clinton hosted a conference on the same topic right here in the U.S., what kind of uproar did it cause among "Progressives?"
You'll find more reports here of heinous charges for blasphemy around the world than you would likely have guessed were going on in non-Muslim countries.
http://jonathanturley.org/?s=blasphemy
Why would anyone other than a right wing religious zealot do anything to legitimize blasphemy laws under International Law?
I don't support any politician who publicly professes ANY religion (which means I'm not part of the voting public, except for the rare Atheist candidate, oh, wait there aren't any!). I'm offended by Obama's "prayer breakfasts" and his national recognition of all holidays that are blatantly christian-centric. There is no fucking reason there should be a national christmas tree, or an easter egg hunt, none of this should happen on government property, yet no politician has ever had the balls to just say "really, I can't believe you people believe this shit!" They all just go along to get along with the majority of religious fools (majority christian) in this country and I for one am happy to live here and I benefit greatly, but I'm not voting for anyone ever until someone has the balls to just admit to being an Atheist.
DeleteI love the America that the Founders intended, however what we have now is nowhere near what their intention was.
Exactly, 10:06, because in England (and other European countries) church and state were one - King of England was head of the Anglican church. One couldn't criticize the King because religion, one couldn't speak against religion, because "head of state" with power to kill.
DeleteWhen religion ruled the world, they called it the Dark Ages for a reason.
Exactly, 10:06, because in England (and other European countries) church and state were one - King of England was head of the Anglican church. One couldn't criticize the King because religion, one couldn't speak against religion, because "head of state" with power to kill.
DeleteWhen religion ruled the world, they called it the Dark Ages for a reason.
What can I say? It's Rick Santorum, just google his name and you know everything you need to know. Thomas Jefferson was a communist? LOL
ReplyDeleteWhen are these nitwits going to get it through their thick skulls that the majority of the founding fathers left England because of religious prosecution therefore wanted separation of church and state! They didn't come to the colonies because they wanted a change of scenery.
ReplyDeleteDid they skip elementary school history class?