need to add title here

GOP candidates define separation of church and state

June 13, 2011 7:02 PM

The 2012 republican presidential candidates were asked in a CNN debate to define what separation of church and state means to them and what role should faith play in politics.

Recent Segments See All Videos
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Add a Comment See all 15 Comments
by paulcrash June 25, 2011 3:42 PM EDT
As usual, the politicians answered a question that was not asked. Santorum said that all faiths should be able to express their views as individuals and that is fine but the question was about the separation of church and state and government endorsement of religion. They want the country to be run by christians for the benefit of christians and I don't see how they can make that claim with a straight face. It is a clear violation of the rights of the minority religions but they don't seem to care. They just want us to step aside while they hijack the government to recite THEIR prayers.
Reply to this comment
by mjelosh June 15, 2011 7:49 AM EDT
Wow... 10 years ago, crazy fundamentalist Muslims who believed that their religion should be law perpetrated the worst act of terrorism in our history. Our response? Vote in crazy fundamentalist Christians who want their religion to be one and the same with our government. Makes perfect sense to me.

Also, "In God We Trust" being on our money does NOT "say it all". If you said that in the 50s we put "In God We Trust" on our money because we were so afraid of the godless communists, that might say it all.
Reply to this comment
by strangelove2 June 14, 2011 12:44 PM EDT
I find this entire Town Hall exchange very frustrating indeed, both the questioner and the answers. It is not about protecting the religious from government, it about protecting the rest of us from the religious.
Reply to this comment
by strangelove2 June 14, 2011 12:35 PM EDT
I find this entire exchange very frustrating indeed, both the questioner and the answers. It is not about protecting the religious from government, it about protecting the rest of us from the religious.
Reply to this comment
by WrennNYC June 14, 2011 12:13 PM EDT
Interesting.

Governer Pawlenty needs to study the founding documents (there is no 'under God).

He has to also bone up on his history, Minnesota became a state in 1858, long after our Founding Fathers were dead.

He's wrong about the separation of church and state, it does work both ways .

I find it sadly amusing that an idea that I only heard from the extreme Christian right 15 years ago (on a compuserve message board, if you must know) that that clause was a one way door, that religion could affect gov't but not the other way around, is now spouted by a man running for our highest office. The courts have routinely ruled otherwise.

The first people to come to this land were fleeing a combination church/state that wasn't their own belief system. As such, they were second class citizens and persecuted. He's wrong about our founding fathers. They knew all to well what it was like to have religion and government were one. That is why they separated it. He needs to read their personal writings and letters, to see their personal viewpoints on religion and government. Most of them would disagree with his viewpoints. But he won't.
Reply to this comment
by Fadefury June 14, 2011 11:34 AM EDT
All of these candidates need to go learn what's the difference between a Deist and a Theist. When God was used anywhere in the foundations of this country at the beginning it was based on a Deist God. Not a Christian monotheist God. The debate was rather embarrassing.
Reply to this comment
by Rememberjournalism June 14, 2011 4:35 AM EDT
*facepalm* The separation is to stop government from creating laws that respect "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."

In other words, no prayer in public schools, no establishment of religions by placing religious paraphernalia on government property, no religious rituals while working for the government, no discrimination of people because of their religious beliefs or lack thereof, and a prohibition of discrimination motivated by religious beliefs.

BTW, the last part of the first amendment to the US bill of rights, about "redress of grievances" is no longer upheld since it's been circumvented by the PATRIOT act.
Reply to this comment
by ZunarJ59 June 13, 2011 11:10 PM EDT
It was stated very well during the debate; "any "separation" was meant to keep Government out of the Church, not to keep the Church out of Government".
Reply to this comment
by babooph June 13, 2011 10:46 PM EDT
Romney has a choice,be a very bad republican,or a very bad Mormon,I do not envy this...
Reply to this comment
See all 15 Comments
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »

  • 48 Hours iPad App

    Big changes for the 2012-2013 season! Watch the current week's episode for FREE up to a week after it airs or subscribe for access to all shows, classic episodes and more!