Mitt Romney: Church State Separation Taken Too Far By Some
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
Respecting = regarding. Respecting =/= honoring
Quoting sweet-a-kins:
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?
Not without some athiest group suing.
Quoting sweet-a-kins:
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.
Quoting Raintree:
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.
Yeah, we do this all the time. Well, some of the time. And mostly with one religion. We nod to others. Some we make noise about being 'unAmerican'. Worse- some we laugh at.
Quoting kailu1835:Respecting = regarding. Respecting =/= honoring
Quoting sweet-a-kins:
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?
Lois Lerner, IRS Official, On Leave Of Absence: Reports
- sweet-a-kins
on Aug. 21, 2012 at 12:12 PM