Herman Cain and separation of church and state

"and hate the concept of the separation of church and state" Both modern liberals and modern conservatives are way off and very selective on this. Modern conservatives are all for your religious freedoms as long as you are Christian or Jewish. Modern liberals are all for your religious freedoms as long as you aren't christian or Jewish. "supporting a black conservative protects them from being labeled as racist" Utter nonsense and baseless speculation "As to the later they for some reason believe that a Christian version of the Taliban ruling the USA would be a great idea" Pretty sickening and offensive comparisson. While there are plenty of Christian conservatives who want to inject christian law in to civil law, I haven't heard about very many Christians flying planes in to buildings in the name of Jesus. "Herman Cain said on Fox News Sunday that the Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state." Herman Cain is wrong. "his desire to ban Mosque from being built" And he would violate the first amendment in trying to carry out this desire. "I am not a witch Christine O'Donnell" Now THIS I take great offense to. As a Pagan, I find your remark insulting and blatently biggoted.

Just a wee bit off the wall here, don't you think???

Maybe I'm to tired to see what is in front of my face, but I can't find the term separation of church and state in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. What I do see is: 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. I did find this tidbit: http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/who2.htm This means, IMHO, that the government cannot sponsor or give preference to one particular religion; and they cannot prohibit the free exercise of any individuals religion, religion being the rituals, dogma and doctrine of a body of believers in said doctrine or dogma. Our country has long held to the practice of allowing consciencious objectors in war. John Kennedy's speech assuring the voters that his Catholicism would not mean the Pope would run Washington has recently been brought to light by GOP candidate Rick Santorum. I am not familiar with Mr. Santorum's speech so I will wait to weigh in on that. In JFK's speech we see a more modern twist to the idea of separation of church and state. I do not think JFK or Jefferson meant that people of faith had no say or any place in society or government. In fact, I think they realized (esp. Jefferson) that faith had its place in society and should be protected, not protested. Like forcing them to pay for something they are morally or philosophicaly opposed to, like birth control and abortions.

about separation of the church and the state,the constitution has a lot to say about..and of course there are people who are against it or approve it.well for me,its just herman cain is using his right of this so called freedom of expression.and as to fulfill his desire well then he has to face the constitution.

Gewcew23, you wouldn't happen to be from the Bible Belt would you? I totally understand the statement about the Christian version of the Taliban ruling the USA being a great idea...one has to experience it to believe it. Unless one has experienced the prejudice that is rampant in the Bible Belt one would have difficulty and take exception to the statements made in the original post. The concept of separation of Church and State came about when there were some ethical concerns over what appeared to be favoritism for those attending the correct church of the correct sect with the correct minister or priest. Sadly there are those who would bastardize this ethical concern into a religious vs nonreligious concern. In the Bible Belt it does matter what church you attend, it does matter who you are seen speaking with at that church...and it all reflects in the local politics and by relation to state and federal politics. The statement 'I am not a witch' is one that, as a pagan myself, I can't find reason to take issue with in regards to the poster...Witchcraft isn't the only paganism around, as a pagan I could take exception to those who seem to be pushing such an agenda...yet that would be a waste of energy which could be spent more productively in other pursuits. If a mosque were to be built at 'ground zero' in NY, MY, since it is a business district the zoning issue would be moot, the uproar over such a building is fear based, with a small percentage of the uproar being based on religious prejudices. As for a debate, I find that they are too stilted and sound planned, almost as though there is a rough draft of a script for most of them...what the politicians say and what they mean have vast gulfs in the middle...

The bible says marriage is between a man and a woman... you can't build a mosque on your own land... Hypocrisy at it's finest.

It could be that he has no understanding of the origin of the seperation clause and what it means. Many, or even most, in Washington do not. What I like about many black conservatives is that they are not tied to playing the race card. A black conservative understands that racism is racism, even if initiated by a minority. He also understands that affirmative action is nothing more than racial discrimination. It has often been demonstrated that the liberals will only accept a minority or a woman if she has bought into the liberal agenda. Otherwise, she is thrown under the bus without a second thought. Liberals are sick!

I was very disappointed when I heard that Cain said that people should be able to prevent a mosque being built. Is that what you were referring to? I can't vote for someone who truly believes that, because how long would it be before a Presbyterian church was rejected, or a Mormon church? This is a free country and when you restrict freedom of religion it ceases to be free very shortly thereafter.