Ken Buck GOP Senate candidate: ‘I Disagree Strongly with Concept of Separation of Church and State’

[Liberal_in_LA]

Ken Buck: ‘I Disagree Strongly with Concept of Separation of Church and State’

ABC News’ Devin Dwyer reports: For at least the third time during the 2010 campaign, a Tea Party-backed U.S. Senate candidate is drawing fire from his Democratic opponents for publicly opposing a rigid separation of church and state.

“I disagree strongly with the concept of a separation of church and state,” Colorado Republican Ken Buck said at a senatorial candidate forum last year. The liberal blog Think Progress resurfaced the comments and posted a video HERE.

“It was not written into the Constitution,” Buck says of separation. “While we have a Constitution that is very strong in the sense that we are not going to have a religion that's sanctioned by the government, it doesn't mean that we need to have a separation between government and religion. And so that, that concerns me a great deal.”

Buck has advocated for a closer relationship between faith-based groups and government, telling a group of Tea Party members in July that secularism in the U.S. is a “very scary concept” and that “the key to a democracy is that we have a public ethic, that we have a public morality.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/10/ken-buck-i-disagree-strongly-with-concept-of-separation-of-church-and-state.html

[Arkana]

1. Too fucking bad and yes it absolutely does.

[spanone]

2. then he should seek asylum in Iran

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Dominionists.

And they are damn dangerous.

If we don't fight back New Jerusalem will be reality.

[driver8]

4. ...and we all know that you can ONLY have "morality" if you've got religion.

That is something that we "godless heathens" have not figured out.

[onenote]

5. Thomas Jefferson and over a hundred years of SCOTUS precendent says otherwise

[mod mom]

6. Then leave the frickin country. It's that easy!

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Does anybody know this guy's IQ? Does he even know what country he's in?

[Angry Dragon]

8. If he feels that way he can not take the oath of office

for if he did he would be guilty of treason
for he would not be upholding the Constitution

[onenote]

9. Its a bad understanding of the law. Its not treason

It really gets old the way some people here throw around "treason" every time someone says something that they disagree with. It makes us look as silly as Christine O'Donnell.

Read the constitution. See the definition of treason. Study the case law. Don't make us look bad.

[ShamelessHussy]

10. American Taliban: Cleric Ken Buck

:shakes-head:

[zipplewrath]

11. How does one have a separation, but not have one?

"While we have a Constitution that is very strong in the sense that we are not going to have a religion that's sanctioned by the government, it doesn't mean that we need to have a separation between government and religion."

It won't be sanctioned, but there won't be any separation? So how does that work? And how will he feel about "no separation" between the government, and those of the muslim faith?

[bullwinkle428]

12. Move to Saudi Arabia, douche-nozzle!

[Fuzz]

13. A distinction without a difference, asshole.

[Toucano]

14. Mental midget.

If you don't have an established religion, you MUST have a separation between government and religion.

Without the wall, you will have a de facto established religion based on the majority view.

End of story. Read a book, whydoncha' Buck!