Rubio: SOCAS Not In the Constitution

Marco Rubio took part in a live discussion in front of an audience last year with Eric Metaxas and repeated one of the most ridiculous Christian right talking points imaginable, the claim that separation of church and state is not in the Constitution because that exact phrase isn’t there.

“This notion of separation between church and state, you won’t find those words in the Constitution,” Rubio said. “That doesn’t mean that we should have an officially sanctioned denomination.”

Rubio warned that “there is an effort to silence those or to crowd out of its rightful place the role of the faith community in our country. The government cannot tell you what faith to belong to but it cannot tell you that you cannot speak about your faith.”

Great. Now if the government was telling people they can’t speak about their faith, that might be relevant. This argument is absolutely moronic. You also won’t find the phrase “separation of powers” in the Constitution either, but Rubio doesn’t seem to think that’s a problem. In 2011 he accused Obama of violating that concept that obviously doesn’t exist since the phrase isn’t there:

Rubio added, “This initiative is an overstep of authority that undermines exiting law, and violates the constitutional separation of powers. The responsibility for legislating lies with Congress, and forcing policy reforms through NCLB waivers violates this most basic of constitutional structures.”

Gee, his reasoning must only apply to those provisions of the Constitution he doesn’t like. How unsurprising.

"Magic 8-Ball? What are you? Some kind of quack?"

Michigan Senate Passes Naturopathy Bill
"Yup: Murc's Law, with the usual corollary of "if it ain't perfect, it's worse than ..."

Michigan Senate Passes Naturopathy Bill
"Blinkered and ignorant?Intentionally incorrect?Clear and present danger?"

Trump’s Fantasy of His Own Popularity
"Pretty words. And that's all.A Trans*woman (especially one of color) still can't walk down a ..."

Michigan Senate Passes Naturopathy Bill

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Chiroptera

    Rubio: SOCAS Not In the Constitution

    How about SOHCAHTOA?

  • eric

    Rubio warned that “there is an effort to silence those or to crowd out of its rightful place the role of the faith community in our country.

    So, Rubio gives a speech about how the government is preventing people from giving the speech he just gave?

  • birgerjohansson

    The gravitational waves of the Big Bang are said to indicate the existence of an infinite Multiverse. So in an alternate reality somewhere Rubio is being persecuted.

  • D. C. Sessions

    How about “limited government?”

  • John Pieret

    That doesn’t mean that we should have an officially sanctioned denomination.

    Translation: We CAN have an officially sanctioned religion and Muslims, Hindus, atheists and even Christianity’s junior partner (Judeos), etc. can be taxed to support it.

  • colnago80

    Article I, Section * of the US Constitution:

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    Let’s rephrase Rubio’s statement:

    This notion of an Airforce, you won’t find those words in the Constitution,”

  • pocketnerd

    Know what else isn’t in the Constitution? “Christianity.”

    So what was your point again?

  • freehand

    Wait, this was all video recorded? The constitution protects freedom of speech and the press, but it says nothing about electronic media. Wipe those files!

  • Chiroptera

    Meanwhile, these clowns think that the US Constitution was meant to set up a “Christian nation” even though those words are not to be found in the document.

    Evangelical christians: having their cake and eating it too for 2000 years.

  • dingojack

    You know who else wasn’t mentioned in the US Constitution….?

    🙂 Dingo

  • Randomfactor

    I don’t recall automatic weapons being mentioned either. They’re out.

  • Richard Smith

    @Chiroptera (#1):

    How about SOHCAHTOA?

    I don’t think any of the founders would sign, or co-sign, if such a tangential subject was included.

  • Gvlgeologist, FCD

    I want to ask this jackass and all others who whine that the US is a Christian country, why they think that an explicitly Christian government is a good idea, exactly what flavor of Xtianity would be the correct one, and what would happen to the people who didn’t subscribe to that exact belief system. Examples, laws, etc., not generalities. I would suspect that even though the majority of the US is Xtian, many of them would be uncomfortable with the answers.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Rubio, while in the Florida legislature, also opined that public school teachers should never say anything that would contradict what any parent had told their children.

    Of course, not one reporter (sfaik) ever asked him about the implications of holding entire schools back to the limits of the most ignorant parents.

    Rubio’s self-sabotage when delivering the Republican reply to an Obama speech on national television, and later when alienating teabaggers over immigration issues, count as his greatest contribution to US politics evah.

  • And as always, if these clowns were right, and the US was explicitly set up to be a Christian nation, we would expect the following:

    1. The Preamble to the Constitution would read “We, the Christian People of the United States” instead of “We the People”

    2. The Federalist Papers and every other tract or pamphlet written in support of ratification of the Constitution would cite Biblical passages to support each section of the Constutition. And yet we see none of that.

    3. Supporters of ratification at the conventions held in each state would not have defended the Article VI language banning religious tests for public office.

    In the absence of specific language in the Constition requiring a conjoining of Church and State, the inference is that there is a separation of the two.

  • Not only is separation of church and state in the Constitution — it’s also in the Bible. “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

    Funny how these idiots bang on and on about how the Constitution is derived from the Bible, and then ignore the one and only instance where they’re right.

  • jaybee

    I guess heroin is legal now, because the phrase “Heroin is illegal” is not in the Constitution.

  • Georgia Sam

    here are some other phrases that do not appear in the Constitution:

    “Separation of powers”

    “Checks and balances”

    “States’ rights”

    So I assume Rubio doesn’t believe in those concepts, either.

  • argos

    Challenge for Christaliban: Found in your Bible:

    “Original sin”


    “Prelapsarian immortality”