it is amazing how separation of church and state for most of these idiots means that the two dont have anything to do with each other. soon we will see that a man who goes to church cant run for for public office. how about mike huckabee? jesse jackson and his son?? these people are simply twisting something simple into a way to get what they want.
I'll mention several talk radio conservatives, Amy.
Here in Denver, Jon Caldara and Dan Caplis have said "establishment of a religion" when they cited the establishment clause. (Jon Caldara is president of a local conservative think tank called Independence Institute. Dan Caplis is a personal injury lawyer.) I don't have specific dates, but I do remember them saying it and I called them on it.
Conservative Catholic talk show host and CEO of Ave Maria Radio, Al Kresta, cited a March 22, 2010 National Catholic Register article on the Newdow v. Rio Linda Pledge of Allegiance case. The NCR article, called "'Under God' Upheld," contained this paragraph:
"In a 2-1 decision, the court ruled that the public school district did not force a specific religion on several unnamed student plaintiffs by holding the pledge ceremony daily in their classrooms. Therefore, they did not violate the establishment clause in the Constitution’s First Amendment, which forbids the state from establishing a religion." The text of the ruling, which unfortunately went against Newdow, does not contain the phrases "a specific religion" or "establishing a religion."
And, of course, there is Mark Levin, as I showed in my original comment. Levin kept referring to "a particular religion."
I searched for other instances.
A conservative website called BoycottLiberalism.com has a list of Rush Limbaugh quotes, this among them:
"The assault on America's religious underpinnings is based on a distorted interpretation of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. Those causes [sic] are 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Only a lawyer could claim not to understand the plain meaning of those words. The government is prohibited from setting up a state religion, such as Britain has, but no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion."
There is a February 28, 2012 column by David Limbaugh at Townhall.com called "Christian Conservatives Guard Religious Liberty." In it he writes:
"The First Amendment's establishment clause says that Congress shall not establish a national church, because the Framers didn't want the government telling us whom or how to worship." The establishment clause does not mention "a national church."
It seems our leader has entered another idea of sanity. Most people know little of FDR's attack on the USA. His packing of the Supreme Court, despite being held as unconstitutional, changed the USA forever. Those life time appointed judges, have rewritten the constitution. I get as mad as Mark, each time one of these, 'constitutinal policies', arise. This issue came from the crusades. It is not an American tradition. It is a real, and present danger, to any government. The idea of a church run state is an abomination. The 'Spanish Inquisition' is not a fiction, it is real, and horrible. The idea, of Judge Black's, is another abomination, to this christian republic. It has created the Obama era, of public attacks on any Christian church. Now, with a Muslim as POTUS, he is making this a Muslim run state, which is just the same as the Inquisition. He, like FDR, has appointed a whole government, which will obey his flagrant attack. Getting rid of it, is as hard as trying to kill a field of ants. Under FDR's planting of communists in the US government, we were undundated by their attack. This new attack is just as fiendish. You saw how the media attacked Joe McCarthy, using every dirty trick imagined. the same will occur, even if every elected official is changed into a patriot. Therefore, you, the people shall have to fight this, one. A large peaceful rally, will stop forever a Mosk being built on ground zero, but one battle does not make the war. The same is required at the polls, YOU must be there to stop any intimidation of the voters. You must fight them in the courts. You must fight them in local elections. You must fight them in every city. You must surround any Mosk that tries to control or intimidate local officials. You must attack them in every media. Calls and Em's to media, will drown them. Sue their slander. It is not business as usual. Some may even learn, the price of eternal freedom, is eternal vigilance.
I frequently hear conservatives inserting the indefinite article "a" before the word "religion." They say: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion ... ." But the "a" is not there, and it does make a difference. Levin bungled it even more when he added the word "particular."
Do you now... Please provide a link because, as a conservative, I don't add an 'a' in there. That would be contrary to the constitution. I know I'm just a knuckle dragging, right wing nut, but I DO have a pretty firm grasp on the Constitution and what it says about religion. I've never heard anyone here advocate for a single religion, ever. So, please, do enlighten me and provide some backup for that assertion.
BETWEEN MARK LEVIN, WALLBUILDERS BOOKS ON THE CONSTITUTION AND OUR HISTORY, HILLSDALE COLLEGE, HERITAGE FOUNDATION, AND MANY OTHERS, i HAVE TO SAY THANK YOU FOR RECTIFYING MY LOUSY EDUCATION ABOUT THE TRUTH OF THE HISTORY IN MY GREAT COUNTRY. THE ELITE ARE MOWING US DOWN THRU OUR IGNORANCE AND PASSIVITY....IT'S TIME TO FIGHT BACK FOR THE SOUL OF AMERICA OR WE WILL BE LIVING UNDER A DICTATOR.....AND WE'LL ONLY BE ALIVE UNTIL THEY IMPLEMENT HEALTHCARE AND THEN THEY'LL WITHHOLD CARE AND LET US DIE. WAKEUP AMERICA!
I never thought I'd live to see a conservative, Christian man grilled over his religious beliefs. I thought this was America...
Santorum's social values are not the main part of his platform - his economic plan is... but he's persecuted for his religion? That's what makes him unelectable?
Santorum is wrong on this!
If I were voting in Michigan today, I'd be voting Santorum, but he is wrong - and so playing into the hands of the liberal media by drawing the line in the wrong place. And they love to say Gingrich lacks "discipline."
JFK was the first Catholic President, and it was a big deal then. (Reference Mark Levin's history lesson). JFK's speech was given to allay fears that his allegiance would be to Papal decree's over the US law. Picking one sentence out of that speech and going bonkers is wrong, and it is the exact thread they willl use to unravel his sweater.
Santorum is no dummy! He is referring to JFK's "absolute separation" line. There can never be an absolute. Religion does play a role on how one governs. Lets take O as an example...he voted for infanticide, for gay marriage, "social justice" (stealing from one to give to another) among other things. Those are his morals, values and beliefs. Santorum's said "Kennedy took words written to protect religion from the government and used them to protect the government from religion." Kennedy was pandering to Evangelicals at a time when Catholics were very unpopular. Kennedy is wrong and Santorum called him out on it!
Here's the major problem with all this right wing rhetoric about "Absolute Separation" between church and state, everyone in this country isn't a Christian, nor espouse christian beliefs (even there beliefs are fractured and opposed). But, you're right that morals or ones beliefs will play a role in how they govern, however, there personal beliefs shouldn't be imposed on the whole, especially when those personal beliefs don't truly represent the whole of society. You can say what you want to say about abortion as child murder, excreta, but it's amazing how YOU far right-wing radicals are so focused on the flesh & less on the spirit. Do you think a man can stop a baby from being born, that the creator purposed to be born, or do you think a man can bring about the birth of a baby the creator hasn't purposed to be born? In fact, you Judeo-Christian God was a supporter of killing infants (you probably need to read the bible and stop listening to rhetoric). Oh, and I am in no way a Muslim, so don't start a bigoted tirade against any religion that isn't' yours. You know, as much as Rick Santorium; Newt Gingrich (both of which would make a horrible Presidents) spew coded and hidden racial and religious baiting and hate, if unchecked, especially Rick Santorium, we would be not better than Iran, South Korea, China or other countries which deprive their citizens of Religious Freedoms.
Also, Obama (who is a US Citizens) did not vote for Infanticide (http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-24/politics/politics_fact-checking-gingrich-infanticide-charge_1_bar-abortions-opponents-of-abortion-rights-barack-obama/2?_s=PM:POLITICS) Please check you facts or get them from a trusted source, NOT FOX.
Please! Don't give me about racial overtones! It's the Democrats who are the race baiters! As for your Messiah, he did vote against the protection of babies being born alive during a botched abortion. You need to get your fact straight! You are only making the point for me...Christians do not have Religious Freedom here in America! It is not Newt or Santorum who is running the country now. It's the Messiah whom you bow at the altar to!!!
Memorized the founder quotes on Christianity and the constitution. When liberals bring up their usual lines then hit them with these quotes and watch the show. Watch them catch fire. It'll be great.
This is why elections are important. Supreme Court Justices, though not as often in the limelight as the other two branches of govt can cause more harm than either their executive or legislative counterparts. This is, in and of itself, a reason to defeat Obama. We have already seen two of his choices and so we must not give him another.
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I
firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” Benjamin Franklin–1787
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” Patrick Henry, May 1765
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of
government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our
capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
James Madison, 1778
“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their
rulers.” John Jay, future SCOTUS
“ I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations.” Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
"Christianity is part of the common law" Justice James Wilson (SCOTUS appointed by George Washington)
"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political
and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity
shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which
flow from them, must fall with them." Jedidiah Morse
Way to go Mark! Excellent history lesson.
Another fact so often overlooked, is there were many Christian Churches, at the time. They all had their axes to grind, like punishing adjacent states' churches, for doing what their own religion required. They were at the constitutional convention. They all had to agree. The subject, was no churches controlling the state. Now, we have the state controlling the churches, a very bad thing. They all fought that. It is the opposite of what they wanted. How can we, the people, allow such a thing?
Brit Hume, right now on O'Reilly is lying through his teeth about Santorum being against contraception. What a stone faced pig!
To clarify Santorum is against contraception, taking on the same view as the Catholic Church on that matter. What Santorum has said publicly (I think the vid is somewhere on this blog) is that he does not want to see government banning contraception (interestingly separating himself from the current trend in the pro-life movement) nor does he feel the government can ban contraception (and he's right one).
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Seems pretty clear to me. The notion that having out political views informed by our religious views is somehow a violation of the 1st amendment would have horrified the founders, and it should horrify us today.
As John Adams said: 'Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people'.
He was correct. And just who is it that wants to abandon the Constitution? Hint: it isn't the moral and religious people of today that wish to trash the Constitution.
You're reading the wrong Constitution. You have to read the liberal's Constitution.
"ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens."
Levin lost me with the "Sharia Courts in S.A. are like Secular Courts in the USA ... like what? Does he want Catholic Courts? ... or Bible Courts? ... or Baptist Courts? ... or some generalized smorg called Christian/Secular Courts?
Sharia Law imposed by Government is Theocracy. Government that does not use specific religious texts to draft law is secular.
Secular governments do not impose religious tenets even though they may structure their laws on the basic moral tenets of a particular religion ... as most all Western Nations have done with their Christian foundations. But, it must never be forgotten that Christians bled rivers of blood slaughtering each other over whose law would rule ... Catholic or Protestant.
I understand that Mark is pissed about the attack on Christian or religious symbols ... like Christmas Trees ... that's easy and even atheists often oppose that ... but if Mark is against Secular Courts ... what would he supplant them with ... Christian Courts where the bible is used to judge individuals ... or Sikh courts ... or Hindu courts.
That's the problem with these demagogic rants ... a lot is tossed out there into the airwaves ... most of it really good ... some of it just silly.
thanks mark! i didn't know that, i thought like most people we've always had separation of church and state. appreciate the history lesson
Did he only read the portion of the decision quoted on Wikipedia? Black went into tremendous detail in the decision backing up quite well his assertion of the separation of church and state.
If Levin had actually done better research and actually read the decision, he would know that Black's decision in Everson is also not the first decision in which we find Thomas Jefferson's words reproduced. He would also know that Black's decision was actually favorable to the Catholic church in that it upheld the law that was being questioned and affirmed the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court that also upheld the law.
Levin was on a rant ... attacking the "person" rather than the logic underpinning the law. That's what happens when you go all demagog.
A better approach would have been to go after the State, imposing itself on the Church. That too, is a separation of church and state issue.
In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." This phrase was lifted from a letter written by the Danbury Baptists which read in part:
"Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights."
In short, the inclusion of protection for the "free exercise of religion" in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected.
Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own:
N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808
While Jefferson certainly believed the First Amendment prohibited the government from elevating one particular religion or denomination therein to a national religion, I don't believe he considered that the sole purpose of the Establishment Clause. And unfortunately the letter you quote doesn't justify such an assertion as you claim.
"The delusion into which the X.Y.Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution ... had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U.S..." The clergy of the various denominations thought the Free Expression clause gave their respective denominations the freedom to, in essence, take over, to establish themselves as the only form of Christianity, if not the only religion, in the country.
He continues: "The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes". While debatable what he means by "the returning good sense of our country", Jefferson is basically saying that the people will not let this happen. In other words, whether the Constitution provides such a capability is immaterial.
Jefferson continues: "they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes." To the extent that it is within his power, he will also not allow such a thing to occur. This is not to say he would be using the power of the government to do this, and he did not do such, nor did he need to.
"And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." To the extent that he is capable, he would oppose what he saw as tyrannies of the mind, including the "corruptions of Christianity", as he would write in a later letter to Benjamin Rush.
What is really amazing is how one bigot, with a single court decision could undermine the moral trajectory of an entire nation. THIS is why there is such a thing as "separation of powers", so no single branch or person can impose their will upon the nation without accountability. This Court decision should NEVER have been allowed to stand.
That's why we can't rest on our laurels even if a true Conservative IS elected to office. The battle may be won, but in a war their are MANY battles, and the war isn't over until the requirements of victory are met. And that means the total eradication of the cancer that is liberalism.
Exactly ... it must not be forgotten that in the context of the time, the fear was of one particular "denomination" imposing itself on the rest. Europe was a hodge podge of Catholic, Church of England, Orthodox, and Protestant theocracies persecuting the "other" and imposing their view of Christianity on the others.
That's my point ... if the issue is the State imposing itself on the Church, then Levin failed in making that clear, and attacked instead a person.
Here is Santorum who makes a far better and simple case:
You hear so much about separation of church and state. I’m for separation of church and state. The state has no business telling the church what to do...
Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:
"[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form [of Christianity] the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly."
Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the "establishment of a particular form of Christianity" by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.
It is very clear from anyone who has ANY common sense "separation of church and state" as it has come to be known is BS. It lays the foundation for creative legal daydreaming when rendering judgements on citizens who want nothing to do with creating a state run religion set on influencing government and writing law, ie IRAN.
There is no state sponsored religion in America, every other argument is a hoax.