Quotes of the day

posted at 10:43 pm on February 27, 2012 by Allahpundit

“Just hours before voters in this state go to the polls, Rick Santorum said the separation of church and state in America has been ‘turned on its head.’

“‘You hear so much about separation of church and state. I’m for separation of church and state. The state has no business telling what the church to do,’ Santorum said at a Chamber of Commerce meeting, apparently referring to the requirement from the Obama administration that all institutions that provide health insurance, including Catholic hospitals, cover birth control and emergency contraception.

“‘But the separation of church and state that our founders believed in, which is what I just described, has now been turned on its head. And now it’s the church, people of faith who have no right to come to the public square and express their points of view, or practice their faith outside of their church,’ Santorum said.”

***

“It’s true that in his famous address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on Sept. 12, 1960, Kennedy stated his belief in an ‘absolute’ separation. But Santorum reads into that speech things that Kennedy did not actually say.

“Kennedy, who was then the Democratic nominee for president, was assuring Protestant ministers that he would not be taking orders from the Vatican should become the first Catholic to be elected to the White House…

“[N]one of the ministers asked Kennedy if he meant that ‘faith is not allowed in the public square’ or that he ‘won’t consult with people of faith,’ the assertions that Santorum now puts in Kennedy’s mouth. Kennedy didn’t say those things, and if any of the ministers who were present in 1960 thought that’s what he meant, none of them said so at the time.”

***

“If all he wanted to do was talk, we would say, Have at it — no matter how misguided we think he is on birth control and many other matters. But does Mr. Santorum really understand the difference between talking about a policy and imposing his views?

“When he so misreads Mr. Kennedy, when he perceives a war that does not exist, he shows a lack of appreciation for the First Amendment. When he accuses President Obama of harboring a ‘phony theology’ — ‘Not a theology based on Bible. A different theology’ — it seems he does not understand the line between policy and religion. Mr. Santorum later explained that he was not questioning Mr. Obama’s faith, only his environmental policy. But theology means ‘the study of God and of the relations between God, humankind and the universe.’

“That Mr. Santorum believes he has the standing to declaim on the rightness of Mr. Obama’s faith, and whether it is sufficiently Bible-based, is in itself disqualifying.”

***

“Gingrich, who converted to Catholicism when he married his third wife, has also lashed out against what he perceives as a war on religion by ‘the secular left.’

“‘The forces of the secular left believe passionately and deeply, and with frankly a religious fervor, in their world view and they will regard what I am saying as a horrifying assault on what they think is the truth,’ Gingrich said. ‘Because their version of the truth is to have a totally neutral government that has no meaning,’ said Gingrich in Georgia.

“Mitt Romney, who is Mormon, has accused Obama of having a ‘secular agenda.’

“‘You expect the president of the United States to be sensitive to that freedom and protect it and, unfortunately, perhaps because of the people the president hangs around with, and their agenda, their secular agenda, they have fought against religion,’ Romney said, responding to a question at a town hall recently about religious freedoms, in particular the Obama administration’s recent controversial attempt to require all institutions, including hospitals and colleges with religious affiliations, to offer free birth control and other contraceptives.”

***

“Oddly, the assurances that Kennedy offered that day are ones that I would like to hear from Santorum. He, too, is a Catholic, although not of the Kennedy variety. Santorum is severe and unamusing about his faith, and that is his prerogative. But he has shoved his beliefs in our faces, leaving no doubt that his presidency would be informed by his extremely conservative Catholicism. Santorum’s views are too conservative even for most Catholics.

“This is a perilous and divisive approach. We have all of world history to warn us about what happens when religion takes too prominent a role. The public square gets used for beheadings and the like. While that is not likely to happen now — zoning rules and such forbid it — we do know that layering religion over politics is dangerous. Santorum cannot impose — and should not argue — that his political beliefs come from God. That closes all debate and often infuriates those who differ.

“This belief that religion has been banished from public discussion is a conservative trope without foundation. New York City is now recovering from a frenzy of celebratory publicity regarding the elevation of Timothy Dolan to cardinal. We have applauded the feats of Tim Tebow, the so-called praying quarterback, who seems unintimidated in publicly expressing his religious convictions. And, of course, we have the prattling of Newt Gingrich, who believes in belief and believes you and I ain’t got any — certainly not if we vote Democratic. As any European can attest, the American public square is soaked in religion or religion-speak.”

***

“One 50-year-old tea party supporter from Tucson pointed to Santorum’s response to the recent White House decision on whether religious-affiliated institutions should be mandated to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees.

“‘In context, what [Santorum is] saying is that government needs to stay out of religion,’ said the man, who declined to give his name. ‘That’s all religion. That’s as bad as the government being in a mosque. It just so happens that right now [Obama has] got his fingers in Christianity. But it had nothing to do with the other way. From George Washington on, there was always prayer in Congress. But the government was supposed to stay out of religion. And that’s where Obama’s going.’

“Might Santorum’s focus on religion hurt him in the race? The tea party supporter said it depends on context.

“‘If people are here, like today, and get to hear it in context, I think they’re all straw dogs, because almost everything I’ve heard from the press is a twisting of what’s being said,’ he said.”

***

Via Greg Hengler.

***

Click the image to watch.

***

Click the image to listen.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

“This is a perilous and divisive approach. We have all of world history to warn us about what happens when religion takes too prominent a role. The public square gets used for beheadings and the like.”

When I read that, I just had to click on the link to see what snarky smartäss wrote it. I wasn’t surprised … It was Cohen at The WaPo, again making a fool of himself.

Meanwhile, President ØmeriKa has always rec’d a pass from the LSM for his radical religious “beliefs” and has governed (when he chooses to, that is) accordingly. We know who influenced Barry Soetero and they aren’t decent people – hell, some not even American.

This would be a great time for someone to write and publish the “unauthorized” biography of ØmeriKa. Get it out there and in everyone’s face now!

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 28, 2012 at 7:33 AM

Is there a link for the Alaska island story?

I’d like to spread that one around. God help us save this country from the Manager of American Decline.

PappyD61 on February 28, 2012 at 7:25 AM

PappyD61:This one,I`m not surprised,and it never ends….and
as usually,MSM is MIA and AWOL!!:)
===========================================

Report: Obama Administration Is Giving Away 7 Strategic Islands to Russia
on Saturday, February 18, 2012, 12:32 PM
*****************************************

May 1881 US explorers approached Jeannette Island and Henrietta Island and claimed them for the United States. According to some US individuals, including the group State Department Watch, eight Arctic islands currently controlled by Russia, including Wrangel Island, are claimed by the United States. However, according to the United States Department of State no such claim exists. The USSR/USA Maritime Boundary Treaty, which has yet to be approved by the Russian Duma, does not address the status of these islands nor the maritime boundaries associated with them.

The Obama Administration is reportedly giving away Wrangell, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta islands in Alaska to Russia. The federal government drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side
Former senatorial candidate Joe Miller broke this story at World
(More…)

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/02/report-obama-administration-is-giving-away-7-strategic-islands-to-russia/
============================================================

Net Daily:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/obamas-giveaway-oil-rich-islands-to-russia/

canopfor on February 28, 2012 at 7:36 AM

I won’t vote for Santorum. Indeed, I can’t vote for someone with his social views and demonstrable lack of understanding of the proper, constitutional role of federal power.

To Santorum, the question of whether or not the government should do something is a moral one – whether it’s right or wrong from a moral point of view. He doesn’t look at things from a constitutional or legal point of view to ask whether the government has the authority to do a thing in the first place.

I’m no Paul fan, but he had a good point in the debate last week: Santorum justified his vote for the unconstitutional Title X by pointing to how he supported the equally unconstitutional Title XX to counter it. The question of whether or not the federal government has the consitutional authority to fund either program never entered his head! And I bet he would defend Title XX for abstinence to the bitter end. And I’m supposed to take his “Oh, I don’t plan to do anything about it” excuses when it comes to his views on private, consensual sex or contraception?

Sadly, given his voting record, I can’t count on him to be a limited government conservative on fiscal matters, either. He looks like more of a big government “compassionate” Republican like GW Bush, Bob Dole, and countless other GOP squishes.

But I’m beating around the bush (hehehehe). Santorum is unelectable, and that’s the bottom line. If you want Obama in the WH for another four years, Nanzi back in control of the House, and Reid running the Senate, support Santorum for the nomination.

DRayRaven on February 28, 2012 at 7:51 AM

A relative (however distant) sent my father a part of his FLORIDA tax return that has Massachusetts health care requirements, that is, basically requiring that Floridians prove they carry Wolfmoon on February 28, 2012 at 3:14 AM

There is no Florida income tax form

katy the mean old lady on February 28, 2012 at 7:54 AM

Here’s the deal, the right (Newt, Rick) seem to be perfectly happy to have Obama for 4 more years.

Perhaps, they are thinking they’ll be next in line…all about themselves…nothing about the country. Sad, really.

But it won’t be either of them…they are destroying themselves too. Like I said…say, really.

r keller on February 27, 2012 at 11:24 PM

(emphasis mine)

*shakes head*

IMO, Speaker Gingrich’s response to this question shoots huge holes in your hypothesis.

Flora Duh on February 28, 2012 at 7:59 AM

Funny, but out here in real America, Santorum is resonating. As one person told me, “They all are pretty much the same on the economy but Santorum is trying to save our society too.”

I know that the social progressives don’t understand, but some of our economic decline is related to the secular PC society that libs have been shoving down our throats for years. We couldn’t stop Fannie and Freddie because that was “racist”. We couldn’t go after the fact that too many children, especially minority children, are born to out of wedlock mothers because that was “racist and against women.”

Conservative and Christian speech and activity has been banished from the public square.
The secularists have fought crosses to mark those who died in war, nativities, the display of the Ten Commandments and any saying, song or reference to Christmas. They want God removed from the dollar and the Pledge of Allegiance.

American History has been bastardized so much in the public schools by liberals that our founding fathers were just slave owners and Ronald Reagan is mostly known for Iran Contra. The overwhelming majority of high school graduates don’t even have a rudimentary knowledge of the history of this country because if they did, they would know that America was founded on the principle that our rights are derived from God, not government, and that is something the secularists don’t want them to know.

Santorum is no more strident in his beliefs than Reagan. Indeed, Reagan was unabashedly religious and pro life;
http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganEvilEmpire1983.html

fight like a girl on February 28, 2012 at 8:34 AM

The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we’re seeing it in our society.

Another brilliant quote from our preacher.

lester on February 27, 2012 at 11:43 PM

I have no problem with Senator Santorum’s statement.

I don’t understand why you would. Unless your idea of a free and civil society is letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire such as this and this and this.

Flora Duh on February 28, 2012 at 8:36 AM

This is the end, my friend. Seriously, Mitt may say some awkward things about trees and Cadillacs and NASCAR owners, but nothing comes close to saying JFK’s speech made Rick want to “throw up”. This thread hits on this theme, but doesn’t include this quote.

Perhaps we’ll have an entire thread devoted to that comment today. I don’t think anyone will talk about how endearing it was, how it makes us want to ruffle his hair. And then perhaps we’ll discuss Rick’s “What a snob!” comment…

Buy Danish on February 28, 2012 at 8:39 AM

Conservative and Christian speech and activity has been banished from the public square.

What are you talking about? Is Santorum in jail? Is the 700 Club banned from the airwaves? Are Rush, Ingraham, Levin, Hewitt etc. “banished”?

Delusional.

lostmotherland on February 28, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Enlightening quotes and commentary on Santorum, and in my own view, alarmingly accurate. The man is a religious zealot–a supporter of religious organizations that are also zealots. It’s fully his right in his personal life to believe in these extreme views; but Rick Santorum is a totalitarian, just like Obama; he believes HE IS RIGHT, and everyone else is WRONG.

Rick Santorum is a SELF-RIGHTEOUS man without a sense of humor. Moreover, he’s a self-righteous man who doesn’t allow doubts about his own righteousness to cloud his mind; he’s rigid, and he’s dogmatically rigid. That makes him a dangerous zealot, who doesn’t belong in the Oval Office.

mountainaires on February 28, 2012 at 10:05 AM

I am a mass. resident. on our state taxexemption return ther is a line for furnishing info on creditable coverage/or exemption to health care insurance requrement.

shYou must also furnish proof that if you live in 2 states you must qualify to be the other states resident on taxes to get out of requirment.

gerrym51 on February 28, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Here’s the deal, the right (Newt, Rick) seem to be perfectly happy to have Obama for 4 more years.

Perhaps, they are thinking they’ll be next in line…all about themselves…nothing about the country. Sad, really.

But it won’t be either of them…they are destroying themselves too. Like I said…say, really.

r keller on February 27, 2012 at 11:24 PM

ok let me get this straight. If a candidate thinks they are on the right track, and they are doing fairly well, they should listen to the other half and step down for what the other perceives is the “greater good”?

congma on February 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Here’s the deal, the right (Newt, Rick) seem to be perfectly happy to have Obama for 4 more years.

Perhaps, they are thinking they’ll be next in line

The Palin crowd actually believes four more years of Obama will send America running to Palin in 2016.

They are not too bright.

Moesart on February 28, 2012 at 12:47 PM

ITguy on February 27, 2012 at 11:16 PM

way back on page1

I’ll make sure to read your posts from now on. Note to self – do not skip ITguy posts.

BoxHead1 on February 28, 2012 at 2:24 AM

Thank you for your kind words. I’m glad you got enjoyed and/or got something out of that comment.

————————

I’m somewhat surprised that no one mentioned the two comments I left back-to-back on February 27, 2012 at 11:32 PM

I linked the Bible references in that comment, but I intentionally did not mention the author or date of that quote.

It is from the Constitutional Convention, and was the origination of the practice of opening each and every session of Congress with a prayer.

The guys who actually wrote and signed the Constitution did not think it “unconstitutional” to pray together before starting the day’s work (government work, at that!) But sadly, the 20th century Supreme Court considered it “unconstitutional” for school children to pray together before starting the day’s work.

And now, decades later, we are reaping what they’ve sown, and the results of which a Democratic President warned us:

The most important business in this Nation–or any other nation, for that matter-is raising and training children. If those children have the proper environment at home, and educationally, very, very few of them ever turn out wrong. I don’t think we put enough stress on the necessity of implanting in the child’s mind the moral code under which we live.

The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.

If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.

- President Harry S. Truman

Is it any wonder that we’re ending up with “a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state”?

ITguy on February 28, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6