Rick Santorum hates America

[KoachKrab127]

"I had the opportunity to read the speech (talking about JFK's separation of church and state speech) and I almost threw up."

Since America was founded on the idea that religion does not influence our government (yes, that is the first amendment), he must hate America.

Separation of church and state means you have religious freedom. It means government will not FORCE you to practice a certain religion. It does NOT mean you are not allowed to practice your religion. But with Santorum, that's the problem. He DOES want the government to force you to practice Christianity. If you disagree, why else would he hate the idea of separation of church and state? "Throwing up" at the idea of separation of church and state means you hate the first amendment. And if you hate the first amendment, you hate America.

People like Santorum seem to think that if they cannot force their beliefs on everyone else, then their constitutional rights of freedom of religion are being violated, which is absolutely absurd. They also seem to think that the idea of separation of church and state means you are not allowed to express your beliefs, which is just plain ignorant.

In a follow-up question, Santorum said, "To say that people of faith have no role in the public square, you bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live in that says only people of nonfaith can come in the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up."

That's either pure ignorance, or flat out LYING. He's taking the first amendment and turning it completely upside down. He thinks that separation of church and state means you are not allowed to talk about religion in the public square? That religious people have no freedom of speech? What??? The first amendment says THE EXACT OPPOSITE. Complete moron.

What do you think, is he lying or is he really this stupid?

 

[volinbham]

While I don't agree with RS on the full extent of what he said, the part that he was objecting to is not in conflict with the founding of our country or the notion of separation of church and state.

His specific objection was not the ideal of church/state separation but Kennedy's interpretation of it.

In particular, he's seems to think this part

where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote — where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference

indicates religious people cannot intrude into politics.

Further, I don't agree that a church school cannot receive public funds if all such church schools can.

 

[KoachKrab127]

While I don't agree with RS on the full extent of what he said, the part that he was objecting to is not in conflict with the founding of our country or the notion of separation of church and state.

His specific objection was not the ideal of church/state separation but Kennedy's interpretation of it.

Read his 2nd quote. He seems to think that separation of church and state means that religious people have no rights.

On top of that, what exactly is wrong with what Kennedy thought? What would make him throw up? The fact that presidents shouldn't let their religious beliefs get in the way of decision making in office? Because that makes me feel relieved, not nauseous.

 

[trevols81]

Probably a litte of both.

Do I think he hates America? No.

Would I ever vote for a social conservative, big government nutjob? No.

 

[KoachKrab127]

Probably a litte of both.

Do I think he hates America? No.

Would I ever vote for a social conservative, big government nutjob? No.

How can you say he does not hate America when the first amendment makes him throw up?

 

[volinbham]

How can you say he does not hate America when the first amendment makes him throw up?

This is where you are making the leap. He is reacting to an interpretation of Kennedy's comments - not the first amendment.

His interpretation may be wrong but it's a stretch to say it means he hates the First Amendment and therefore hates America.

For the record, I disagree with him on this among other things.

 

[trevols81]

This is where you are making the leap. He is reacting to an interpretation of Kennedy's comments - not the first amendment.

His interpretation may be wrong but it's a stretch to say it means he hates the First Amendment and therefore hates America.

For the record, I disagree with him on this among other things.

Agreed on all accounts.

 

[KoachKrab127]

This is where you are making the leap. He is reacting to an interpretation of Kennedy's comments - not the first amendment.

His interpretation may be wrong but it's a stretch to say it means he hates the First Amendment and therefore hates America.

For the record, I disagree with him on this among other things.

Okay, I see your side. However, his misunderstanding of what the first amendment actually is really scares me.

 

[milohimself]

bham has it right here.

That said, between this, his recollection of the french revolution and other quotes, his interpretations of history and exactly what liberty is seem to be severely lacking in critical thought or analysis.

A commonly missed point on the first amendment imo seems to be the freedom from religion (read: theocracy) in addition to the freedom of religion.

 

[lawgator1]

I am sure that if he had his way Christianity would play a larger role in government and our daily lives than it does.

Doesnt mean he would try, much less succeed, at making it so if he were POTUS.

 

[MystifyingVol]

I have to give him the benefit of the doubt, he's that stupid.

 

[GAVol]

JFK was going overboard to placate those that were freaking out over a Catholic getting elected President and the Pope somehow running the US government.

This has nothing to do with imposing anything on anybody. It's Santorum overreacting to the overboard to win over his base. Just another day in politics.

 

[BeecherVol]

I am sure that if he had his way Christianity would play a larger role in government and our daily lives than it does.

Doesnt mean he would try, much less succeed, at making it so if he were POTUS.

President Barack Obama on Thursday tied his proposal to raise taxes on wealthy Americans to his faith, telling leaders gathered for the National Prayer Breakfast that Jesus’s teachings have shaped that conclusion.
The rich should pay more not only because “I actually think that is going to make economic sense, but for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’” Obama said

“When I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us,” Obama said, “I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody, but I also do it because I know far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years. And I believe in God’s command to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.’”

Obama said Thursday that religious teachings support “caring for the poor and those in need.”
Those values have “always made this country great — when we live up to them; when we don’t just give lip service to them; when we don’t just talk about them one day a year. And they’re the ones that have defined my own faith journey,” he said.

I thought this was interesting considering your idea on trying to push christianity into a larger role within the government.

 

[utvolpj]

In particular, he's seems to think this part

where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote — where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference

indicates religious people cannot intrude into politics.

Further, I don't agree that a church school cannot receive public funds if all such church schools can.

I don't really see how he can interpret it that way.

As long as churches are tax-exempt they shouldn't be advocating one candidate over another. I have a hard time with religious schools getting public funds (can deal with it) but the "political preference" is pretty much a no-go

 

[milohimself]

I don't really see how he can interpret it that way.

As long as churches are tax-exempt they shouldn't be advocating one candidate over another. I have a hard time with religious schools getting public funds (can deal with it) but the "political preference" is pretty much a no-go

... Which is the reason why I had a big problem with the catholic bishops letter last month.

 

[KoachKrab127]

I thought this was interesting considering your idea on trying to push christianity into a larger role within the government.

Obama is a sap. He shouldn't be mixing religion and politics like that.

I am not a republican, but I do not care for Obama either. I think he's a coward and a liar.

It is kinda funny though that a politician who claims he is Christian finally follows true Christian teachings besides hating gays (even though Jesus never said hate the gays, republicans love to hate them because God told them to).

 

[BeecherVol]

Obama is a sap. He shouldn't be mixing religion and politics like that.

I am not a republican, but I do not care for Obama either. I think he's a coward and a liar.

It is kinda funny though that a politician who claims he is Christian finally follows true Christian teachings besides hating gays (even though Jesus never said hate the gays, republicans love to hate them because God told them to).

I just thought the irony in Obama's remarks as it pertained to the post I quoted was quiet funny.

Politicians mix beliefs (religious and non) in how the govern and serve in office everyday. One is no different than the other. You pick the one that fits your views and go with that.

 

[RespectTradition]

I don't really see how he can interpret it that way.

As long as churches are tax-exempt they shouldn't be advocating one candidate over another. I have a hard time with religious schools getting public funds (can deal with it) but the "political preference" is pretty much a no-go

Do you think AARP, NEA, NRA, etc should not be allowed to advocate politics simply because they are tax-exempt?

 

[trevols81]

Do you think AARP, NEA, NRA, etc should not be allowed to advocate politics simply because they are tax-exempt?

I'm not pj but the answer is no. And I would wager that a church holds more influence over its members than any of those organizations combined.

/jus sayin

 

[VOLatile]

Do you think AARP, NEA, NRA, etc should not be allowed to advocate politics simply because they are tax-exempt?

I don't think any tax-exempt entity should be allowed to influence politics.

Also, the NRA is tax-exempt. Why?

 

[volinbham]

... Which is the reason why I had a big problem with the catholic bishops letter last month.

Hold on a minute - that's a two way street; the government was mandating they do something in direct contradiction to their doctrine.

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Don't see how the government can violate the first concept here but the church can't violate the second concept.

Further, why can't religion have a voice like any other group. Doesn't mean government has to listen but I fully support the right of the Bishops to write that letter.

 

[volinbham]

I just thought the irony in Obama's remarks as it pertained to the post I quoted was quiet funny.

Politicians mix beliefs (religious and non) in how the govern and serve in office everyday. One is no different than the other. You pick the one that fits your views and go with that.

Absolutely. Anyone suggesting that Rev. Wright didn't talk politics with his congregation?

Santorum is overboard but suggesting he's the only one involving religion in government is absurd.

 

[milohimself]

Hold on a minute - that's a two way street; the government was mandating they do something in direct contradiction to their doctrine.

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Don't see how the government can violate the first concept here but the church can't violate the second concept.

Further, why can't religion have a voice like any other group. Doesn't mean government has to listen but I fully support the right of the Bishops to write that letter.

Well this is going to get back right into the contraception debate.

First off, if health insurance and employment are separated, then this whole issue goes away. The law as it was written was not understood to be a constitutional violation because it was drafted based on existing law (with room to be changed) that the catholic church seemed to have no problem with, as they didn't challenge it, except in new york where the scotus upheld the law. That letter was a call to political action by the bishops.

Youre right; it is a two way street. Just because one group isn't in their lane doesn't mean the other group can do the same.

But, as I said, with health care separate from employment, the whole issue disappears.

 

[possumslayer]

"I had the opportunity to read the speech (talking about JFK's separation of church and state speech) and I almost threw up."

Since America was founded on the idea that religion does not influence our government (yes, that is the first amendment), he must hate America.

Separation of church and state means you have religious freedom. It means government will not FORCE you to practice a certain religion. It does NOT mean you are not allowed to practice your religion. But with Santorum, that's the problem. He DOES want the government to force you to practice Christianity. If you disagree, why else would he hate the idea of separation of church and state? "Throwing up" at the idea of separation of church and state means you hate the first amendment. And if you hate the first amendment, you hate America.

People like Santorum seem to think that if they cannot force their beliefs on everyone else, then their constitutional rights of freedom of religion are being violated, which is absolutely absurd. They also seem to think that the idea of separation of church and state means you are not allowed to express your beliefs, which is just plain ignorant.

In a follow-up question, Santorum said, "To say that people of faith have no role in the public square, you bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live in that says only people of nonfaith can come in the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up."

That's either pure ignorance, or flat out LYING. He's taking the first amendment and turning it completely upside down. He thinks that separation of church and state means you are not allowed to talk about religion in the public square? That religious people have no freedom of speech? What??? The first amendment says THE EXACT OPPOSITE. Complete moron.

What do you think, is he lying or is he really this stupid?

but socialist Muslim views and stomping on the constition rock!
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[trevols81]

but socialist Muslim views and stomping on the constition rock!
Posted via VolNation Mobile

What's a constition? And how do I stomp on it?