Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Mitt Romney: Church State Separation Taken Too Far By Some

Posted by on Aug. 21, 2012 at 12:12 PM
  • 17 Replies

Mitt Romney: Church State Separation Taken Too Far By Some

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney believes that "some" Americans have taken the separation of church and state too far, "well beyond its original meaning."

In an interview released Tuesday with the Washington National Cathedral's magazine, Cathedral Age, Romney said those who "seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God" aren't acting in line with the Founders' intent.

The separation of church and state is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution, but Congress and the courts have debated the practical extent of that separation since its founding.

Romney said the Founders didn't intend for "the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God, 'and in God, we do indeed trust."

President Barack Obama also was given a chance to answer questions about his Christian faith and about faith in public life. He called faith a "powerful force for good," but stopped short of suggesting that its influence in America had been forcibly diminished in recent years.

Romney, who is Mormon, didn't mention his faith by name during the nine-page interview, but acknowledged that, "I am often asked about my faith and my beliefs about Jesus Christ. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind."

"Every religion has its own unique doctrines and history," he said, and "these should not be bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance."

Despite early speculation that Romney's Mormon faith would present a problem for Republican voters, a recent poll showed that Republican and Democratic voters are generally unconcerned about his faith

 

 

by on Aug. 21, 2012 at 12:12 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
Pema_Jampa
Report
Aicha
Yesterday at 7:04 PM
Khaled, Taha, Faudel - Aicha - Live HD

Live Concert - 1,2,3 Soleils - 1998 ***Warning*** The last person who copied/stole this video to his account was reported and YT removed his copy of this video.

by Celeste on Aug. 21, 2012 at 12:14 PM

What is taking it too far? Examples?

kailu1835
by Silver Member on Aug. 21, 2012 at 1:21 PM

 I absolutely agree.  The point was to keep the government from ESTABLISHING a religion.  Establishing and allowing are two very different things, and the constitution was very clear on its wording.

Raintree
by Silver Member on Aug. 21, 2012 at 1:24 PM
Quoting kailu1835:

 I absolutely agree.  The point was to keep the government from ESTABLISHING a religion.  Establishing and allowing are two very different things, and the constitution was very clear on its wording.




Who isn't allowed to practice their faith?
Raintree
by Silver Member on Aug. 21, 2012 at 1:27 PM
1 mom liked this
Some of what he said was very manipulative: ex. 'one nation under god'- that was added to the pledge- not the constitution- in the 1950s. Similar business with the 'in god we trust' phrase.
kailu1835
by Silver Member on Aug. 21, 2012 at 1:40 PM

 It's the whole "you can't practice your religion, any aspect of it, on any government owned property" thing that goes too far.  The constitution does not even say that the government cannot endorse a religion.  However, they cannot establish a religion, or make everyone join a set religion.  That is the only thing specified by the constitution.

Quoting Raintree:

Quoting kailu1835:

 I absolutely agree.  The point was to keep the government from ESTABLISHING a religion.  Establishing and allowing are two very different things, and the constitution was very clear on its wording.




Who isn't allowed to practice their faith?

 

babiesbabybaby development

sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on Aug. 21, 2012 at 1:43 PM

 or RESPECTING one, aka a government sanctioned religion

what religions are and aren't allowed?

Quoting kailu1835:

 I absolutely agree.  The point was to keep the government from ESTABLISHING a religion.  Establishing and allowing are two very different things, and the constitution was very clear on its wording.

 

kailu1835
by Silver Member on Aug. 21, 2012 at 1:45 PM

 no, not aka government sanctioned religion, it's aka making any laws restricting ANY freedom of religion.  By very definition, telling a religious group that they may not pray on government property is going against the constitution.

Most recently, it's been anything related to Christanity, the religion or the symbols of it.

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

 or RESPECTING one, aka a government sanctioned religion

what religions are and aren't allowed?

Quoting kailu1835:

 I absolutely agree.  The point was to keep the government from ESTABLISHING a religion.  Establishing and allowing are two very different things, and the constitution was very clear on its wording.

 

 

babiesbabybaby development

sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on Aug. 21, 2012 at 1:47 PM

 

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.

 

We cannot make any laws RESPECTING ANY religion

Quoting kailu1835:

 It's the whole "you can't practice your religion, any aspect of it, on any government owned property" thing that goes too far.  The constitution does not even say that the government cannot endorse a religion.  However, they cannot establish a religion, or make everyone join a set religion.  That is the only thing specified by the constitution.

Quoting Raintree:

Quoting kailu1835:

 I absolutely agree.  The point was to keep the government from ESTABLISHING a religion.  Establishing and allowing are two very different things, and the constitution was very clear on its wording.




Who isn't allowed to practice their faith?

 

 

sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on Aug. 21, 2012 at 1:48 PM

 Where is it stated you cannot pray on government property?

You are free to pray anywhere you wish

Quoting kailu1835:

 no, not aka government sanctioned religion, it's aka making any laws restricting ANY freedom of religion.  By very definition, telling a religious group that they may not pray on government property is going against the constitution.

Most recently, it's been anything related to Christanity, the religion or the symbols of it.

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

 or RESPECTING one, aka a government sanctioned religion

what religions are and aren't allowed?

Quoting kailu1835:

 I absolutely agree.  The point was to keep the government from ESTABLISHING a religion.  Establishing and allowing are two very different things, and the constitution was very clear on its wording.

 

 

 

PamR
by Platinum Member on Aug. 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Romney is pandering.  He's a politician.  That's all this is about.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)