 |
| Note: This picture of Rick Santorum is composed of stills from gay porn. Don't click it unless you're into that sort of thing! Image found at UnicornBooty. |
So, it's only natural that Santorum's froth has risen to the top on left-leaning blogs like this one. He's got the spotlight on him, and when he does. . .well, he shows who he really is. Hence, I've got a number of Santorum posts. I know it's distasteful, but what can I do? Anyway, this particular post is necessary, not just because of its newsworthiness. It's important because there is a distinction that needs to be made loud and clear:
This country was founded upon the principal of the separation of church and state.
Yes, religious people can be active in politics. Yes, they can become elected officials. What they cannot do, is legislate their religious beliefs into law. They cannot make their constituents--who are comprised of people of many faiths, or no faith--adhere to laws that are based on any religion. This is the way it is supposed to work. It doesn't always. There are--for example--no good reasons for the rabid opposition to same sex marriage that are not religion-based. "Blue" laws are almost universally religion-based, and those date back centuries in some cases. Here in Las Vegas, we even have Mormon-based laws about when you can sell new cars, no joke. And of course, "In God We Trust" is on the money. Most non-God believers don't make much of a fuss over that one, but it is obvious that it shouldn't be there (and it makes as much sense to me as, "In Wookies We Trust.").
But religion isn't supposed to affect law. And Rick Santorum obviously would like it to be otherwise.
[Excerpt]
Santorum: Separation Of Church And State 'Makes Me Want To Throw Up'
. . ."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.". . .
Read more at: Huffington Post
Separation of church and state, a bedrock principle of our Constitution, is hardly "absolute"--at least not in the cartoonish sense Santorum supposes President Kennedy meant in his 1960 speech. Kennedy did not remotely suggest that faith is not allowed in the public square. In asserting otherwise, Santorum sets up a silly "straw man" against which he then boldly battles. What nonsense.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to distinguish between the "public square" and "government" and between "individual" and "government" speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square--far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views--publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
Nor does the constitutional separation of church and state prevent citizens from making decisions based on principles derived from their religions. Moreover, the religious beliefs of government officials naturally may inform their decisions on policies. The principle, in this context, merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion; in other words, the predominant purpose and primary effect must be nonreligious or secular in nature. A decision coinciding with religious views is not invalid for that reason as long as it has a secular purpose and effect.
The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
Well said, thank you. Love your name!
ReplyDelete