How can people really vote for Santorum

[DontBeStupid]

Whom said anything of the 1950's? 1850's? 1750's?

Does the date matter? As a matter of course? No, it doesn't. The fact is that Government has taken on the role where it doesn't belong by design.

The date does matter.

In this day and age there are different kinds of families other than husband, wife and 7 kids. A politician that doesn't recognize that and support that, doesn't share my beliefs and therefore won't get my vote.

But again I'll say, if you can explain to me how "strengthening traditional families" will lead to job creation, I will re-consider.

Do principles change because of the date? Really?

And those would be? What exactly?

 

[The T]

Santorum is an idiot. JFK didn't say anything about expelling faith.


Santorum: JFK's 1960 Speech On Religion Made Me Want To Throw Up - YouTube

Sorry Man, I thought you were referring to Justice Kennedy.

NO problem. this is the speech that Santorum has trouble with. He either doesn't believe in separation of church and state, doesn't understand what JFK said, or both. My guess is both.

Albiet it doesn't exist as it is perpetrated presently.

 

[elvis]

Sorry Man, I thought you were referring to Justice Kennedy.

NO problem. this is the speech that Santorum has trouble with. He either doesn't believe in separation of church and state, doesn't understand what JFK said, or both. My guess is both.

Albiet it doesn't exist as it is perpetrated presently.

right. but San Whore um has trouble with what was said in 1960.

 

[The T]

NO problem. this is the speech that Santorum has trouble with. He either doesn't believe in separation of church and state, doesn't understand what JFK said, or both. My guess is both.

Albiet it doesn't exist as it is perpetrated presently.

right. but San Whore um has trouble with what was said in 1960.

And it hurt him. Santorum has a good fight...he unfortunately doesn't know when to launch such fights. NOW wasn't the time.

 

[The T]

The date does matter.

In this day and age there are different kinds of families other than husband, wife and 7 kids. A politician that doesn't recognize that and support that, doesn't share my beliefs and therefore won't get my vote.

But again I'll say, if you can explain to me how "strengthening traditional families" will lead to job creation, I will re-consider.

Do principles change because of the date? Really?

And those would be? What exactly?

Try Limited government, individual responsibility. You know? Liberty to succeed, liberty to fail, pick up and try again without Government intrusion.

Have those gone out of style?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Watch Santorum answer questions in the affirmative. He often shakes his head as though he is responding in the negative.

And....nutters.....relax. I am talking about the times when he elaborates.

 

[Intense]

Santorum is an idiot. JFK didn't say anything about expelling faith.


Santorum: JFK's 1960 Speech On Religion Made Me Want To Throw Up - YouTube

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAvHHTt2czU]JFK on the Separation of Church and State - YouTube[/ame]

JFK on the Separation of Church and State

September 12th, 1960. Shortly before the Election.

What is JFK doing? Dispelling the false notion that as a Catholic, he would be subject to the Authority of His Bishop, or the Pope, while acting as Head of State. Let's distinguish between Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Speech. A Religious Leader does not have the Right to Order you to do or not do, in the Public Square. A Religious Leader does have the Right to Bear Witness and Testify, just as Any Other Citizen does, on the Public Square. Being of a Church, does not imply a Negative Right, for Believers. If Kennedy is implying that, I would disagree with him.

You know when New York first became a State, Clergy was totally banned from holding Government Office.

During the early nineteenth century thirteen American states had provisions in their state constitutions which prohibited clergy from holding political offices. Most states dropped this provision from their constitutions before 1880. Most of the states with these provisions in their constitutions were southern or border states. How can we explain why some states did or did not exclude clergy from political office? The timing of adoption of these rules shows that they were not adopted to limit the influence of the Roman Catholic church. It was not part of the nineteenth-century nativist campaigns against the Catholic church. Some evidence is presented to support the hypothesis that discrimination against dergy was a way of taking revenge against Great Britain, the pre-revolution colonial power.

During the first century after American independence thirteen states had provisions in their state constitutions which did nor allow clergy to hold political office. Article 39 of the New York State Constitution of 1777 illustrates the way these constitutional provisions are worded.

The Exclusion of Clergy from Political Office in American States: An Oddity in Church-State Relations | Sociology of Religion | Find Articles

 

[DontBeStupid]

Do principles change because of the date? Really?

And those would be? What exactly?

Try Limited government, individual responsibility. You know? Liberty to succeed, liberty to fail, pick up and try again without Government intrusion.

Have those gone out of style?

What has that got to do with Santorum wanting to "strengthen traditional families" ?

 

[freedombecki]

I just dont understand how a logical person can vote for this guy. I'm trying to find a reason on why so many people would actually think this guy is any good. This guy is far gone.

Did ya' see who the current President is?
'nuff said?


US: $15,488,891,296,248 - Debt as of March 2012
The Concord Coalition

Being against Obama is a stupid reason for voting for a man who's stuck in the 17th century. The GOP has failed to come forward with a credible, viable candidate. It's a joke. And after all that chest-thumping on November 5, 2008. The Republicans are eating their own. Obama will win by a landslide.

...Too.....much......Huff.....and....Puff....Post....

 

[Missourian]

Santorum is an idiot. JFK didn't say anything about expelling faith.


Santorum: JFK's 1960 Speech On Religion Made Me Want To Throw Up - YouTube

Sorry Man, I thought you were referring to Justice Kennedy.

NO problem. this is the speech that Santorum has trouble with. He either doesn't believe in separation of church and state, doesn't understand what JFK said, or both. My guess is both.

He said exactly what he meant.

I believe the same.

The Constitution says that there shall be no ESTABLISHMENT of religion...not that the separation of church and state must be absolute.

An ABSOLUTE separation means religious based argument could not be considered in the public square. For example, I oppose the death penalty on religious grounds.

An absolute separation would invalidate my voice on that subject, effectively disenfranchising me.

A position held based on a religious belief is every bit as valid as any other.

That is the very nature of the ideal behind FREEDOM of religion.

How can one have a freedom that cannot be expressed in the public square?

 

[elvis]

Sorry Man, I thought you were referring to Justice Kennedy.

NO problem. this is the speech that Santorum has trouble with. He either doesn't believe in separation of church and state, doesn't understand what JFK said, or both. My guess is both.

He said exactly what he meant.

I believe the same.

The Constitution says that there shall be no ESTABLISHMENT of religion...not that the separation of church and state must be absolute.

An ABSOLUTE separation means religious based argument could be considered as a basis of law. For example, I oppose the death penalty on religious grounds.

An absolute separation would invalidate my voice on that subject, effectively disenfranchising me.

A position held based on a religious belief is every bit as valid as any other.

That is the very nature of the ideal behind FREEDOM of religion.

How can one have a freedom that cannot be expressed in the public square?

where are you and Santorum getting this "public square" thing?

 

[The T]

Sorry Man, I thought you were referring to Justice Kennedy.

NO problem. this is the speech that Santorum has trouble with. He either doesn't believe in separation of church and state, doesn't understand what JFK said, or both. My guess is both.

He said exactly what he meant.

I believe the same.

The Constitution says that there shall be no ESTABLISHMENT of religion...not that the separation of church and state must be absolute.

An ABSOLUTE separation means religious based argument could be considered as a basis of law. For example, I oppose the death penalty on religious grounds.

An absolute separation would invalidate my voice on that subject, effectively disenfranchising me.

A position held based on a religious belief is every bit as valid as any other.

That is the very nature of the ideal behind FREEDOM of religion.

How can one have a freedom that cannot be expressed in the public square?

And the phrase 'Separation of Church and State' came from a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists...."Wall of Separation"...

Practicing freely and not meaning that the Government could not establish a State religion as was the case in Great Britain...but any citizen was free to exercise their religion or lack thereof without legal recourse from the government.

 

[elvis]

So Santorum doesn't believe in separation of Church and State, as his stances on birth control and other issues clearly illustrate. His reaction to JFK solidifies that. good to know.

 

[Intense]

Sorry Man, I thought you were referring to Justice Kennedy.

NO problem. this is the speech that Santorum has trouble with. He either doesn't believe in separation of church and state, doesn't understand what JFK said, or both. My guess is both.

He said exactly what he meant.

I believe the same.

The Constitution says that there shall be no ESTABLISHMENT of religion...not that the separation of church and state must be absolute.

An ABSOLUTE separation means religious based argument could not be considered in the public square. For example, I oppose the death penalty on religious grounds.

An absolute separation would invalidate my voice on that subject, effectively disenfranchising me.

A position held based on a religious belief is every bit as valid as any other.

That is the very nature of the ideal behind FREEDOM of religion.

How can one have a freedom that cannot be expressed in the public square?

Agree with everything but your Signature.

 

[Missourian]

NO problem. this is the speech that Santorum has trouble with. He either doesn't believe in separation of church and state, doesn't understand what JFK said, or both. My guess is both.

He said exactly what he meant.

I believe the same.

The Constitution says that there shall be no ESTABLISHMENT of religion...not that the separation of church and state must be absolute.

An ABSOLUTE separation means religious based argument could be considered as a basis of law. For example, I oppose the death penalty on religious grounds.

An absolute separation would invalidate my voice on that subject, effectively disenfranchising me.

A position held based on a religious belief is every bit as valid as any other.

That is the very nature of the ideal behind FREEDOM of religion.

How can one have a freedom that cannot be expressed in the public square?

where are you and Santorum getting this "public square" thing?

The public square...the area in front of town hall where public meetings are held.

It's another way of saying "involvement of the individual in directing the affairs of government".

 

[Intense]

NO problem. this is the speech that Santorum has trouble with. He either doesn't believe in separation of church and state, doesn't understand what JFK said, or both. My guess is both.

He said exactly what he meant.

I believe the same.

The Constitution says that there shall be no ESTABLISHMENT of religion...not that the separation of church and state must be absolute.

An ABSOLUTE separation means religious based argument could be considered as a basis of law. For example, I oppose the death penalty on religious grounds.

An absolute separation would invalidate my voice on that subject, effectively disenfranchising me.

A position held based on a religious belief is every bit as valid as any other.

That is the very nature of the ideal behind FREEDOM of religion.

How can one have a freedom that cannot be expressed in the public square?

And the phrase 'Separation of Church and State' came from a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists...."Wall of Separation"...

Practicing freely and not meaning that the Government could not establish a State religion as was the case in Great Britain...but any citizen was free to exercise their religion or lack thereof without legal recourse from the government.

Exactly. How could we have Freedom of Speech, without Supporting Freedom of Conscience.

 

[elvis]

He said exactly what he meant.

I believe the same.

The Constitution says that there shall be no ESTABLISHMENT of religion...not that the separation of church and state must be absolute.

An ABSOLUTE separation means religious based argument could be considered as a basis of law. For example, I oppose the death penalty on religious grounds.

An absolute separation would invalidate my voice on that subject, effectively disenfranchising me.

A position held based on a religious belief is every bit as valid as any other.

That is the very nature of the ideal behind FREEDOM of religion.

How can one have a freedom that cannot be expressed in the public square?

where are you and Santorum getting this "public square" thing?

The public square...the area in front of town hall where public meetings are held.

It's another way of saying "involvement of the individual in directing the affairs of government".

Kennedy didn't say anything about the public square. or about expelling faith of citizens or anything.

 

[Gagafritz]

I wouldn't have any problem voting for Santorum. He is a straight upfront kind of guy. While i might not agree with everything he says, at least i know where he stands. THAT i can deal with versus a President who just says what he thinks people want to hear. I can respect you and disagree. I can't respect or vote for someone who is simply a liar and all about pandering.

 

[elvis]

He said exactly what he meant.

I believe the same.

The Constitution says that there shall be no ESTABLISHMENT of religion...not that the separation of church and state must be absolute.

An ABSOLUTE separation means religious based argument could be considered as a basis of law. For example, I oppose the death penalty on religious grounds.

An absolute separation would invalidate my voice on that subject, effectively disenfranchising me.

A position held based on a religious belief is every bit as valid as any other.

That is the very nature of the ideal behind FREEDOM of religion.

How can one have a freedom that cannot be expressed in the public square?

And the phrase 'Separation of Church and State' came from a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists...."Wall of Separation"...

Practicing freely and not meaning that the Government could not establish a State religion as was the case in Great Britain...but any citizen was free to exercise their religion or lack thereof without legal recourse from the government.

Exactly. How could we have Freedom of Speech, without Supporting Freedom of Conscience.

NO one is stopping freedom of speech. We just don't want a zealot like Santorum governing from his version of the Bible.

 

[elvis]

where are you and Santorum getting this "public square" thing?

The public square...the area in front of town hall where public meetings are held.

It's another way of saying "involvement of the individual in directing the affairs of government".

nobody is stopping nor wants to. You just made up an argument

actually Santorum made it up.