How can people really vote for Santorum

[Intense]

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.

I think it's more that his version of Separation of Church and State differs from Yours. Bring it back to Locke. Would You want Judges Dictating on Matters of Salvation, or matters of Doctrine or Dogma? No. Would you want Clergy Dictating on Matters of State, with Force of Law? No. It's in the specifics, the details, that you would find agreement.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Apparently, you haven't taken a good look at the vapid, vain, incoherent, over-his-head Marxist ideologue currently occupying 1600 Pennsylvania.

How'd that happen?

oh so you would trade a leftwing bigger government for a religious big government guy?

Funny how you always seem to defends these pukes

Said nothing of the sort and I'm defending nothing.

What I'm pointing out -and what is flying clean over the heads of the knee-jerk Boiking fluffers- is that most people, up to and including the nutbar OP, will vote for inSanetorum or (insert party man douchebag here) for the same reason we ended up with the current flake squatting in the WH...That being most voters will fall for image and party affiliation over anything of substance.

Hope that clears it up for y'all.

 

[Liability]

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.

I'd vote for a bowl of tapioca pudding over President Obama. And I don't really much care for tapioca.

Therefore, I could easily vote for Rick Santorum, even though I don't always agree with the things he says or does.

 

[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 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.

That was supposed to be a "lol", suffered a bout of premature reputation.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the ignorant....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How can people really vote for Santorum

It is truly a mystery.

As with those who vote for Santorum, social conservatives must be motivated by ignorance and hate.

Ignorance of the Constitution and the doctrine of the rule of law, hate for those who are different or who elect to believe differently, or to not believe at all.

In many respects social conservatism is as old as Western Civilization itself, with its endemic religious arrogance and intolerance.

Needless to say, social conservatives are free to believe as they see fit, provided they understand they may not compel others to believe as they do by attempting to codify religious dogma into secular law, thus violating the First Amendment’s admonishment that church and State must not be conjoined:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District

That social conservatives disagree with this settled law or consider the Supreme Court ‘wrong’ is of course irrelevant – it is indeed the law of the land, and they must abide by it accordingly.

Social conservatives will often complain that existing case law on the issue ‘denies them a voice in the public square,’ nothing could be further from the truth. There is nothing prohibiting a person of faith expressing that faith in any venue, public or private. That the Constitution forbids religious expression as a matter of official public policy is in no way a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

What we see, then, with regard to Santorum and his supporters, is a classic manifestation of the authoritarianism of the right, the conservative desire to compel everyone to conform to a social and religious worldview predicated on religious dogma, not fact, not the law, and not on sound public policy.

 

[The T]

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.

And he says he would?

How about Obama's version (if one could lay thier finger on it), but from where i sit? Obama's version is destroying the Republic, and the will of a Free Republic for something lower of an EU lack of quality of Socialism.

 

[Sarah G]

A lot of Republicans find Santorum the best choice, he has his own issues, they like way he relates to people, if he screws up and says dumb things, his wife makes him explain himself and make things right.

He's too extreme for me but I can understand what people see in him.

 

[The T]

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.

Both are inexorably intertwined...there's no escaping it. To separate the two as has been done means the doom of all the Founders fought for.

 

[freedombecki]

It didn't happen because it's right wing nonsense.

Sorry, sir, but some of us noticed Barack Obama's Senate voting record and knew ahead of time--the man was a mile left of Hillary Clinton.

Not everybody bought the gulag farm like you and ducky.

Actually, we're pragmatic and focused on restoring America closer to the founder's model instead of the Obama experimental disaster.

a mile left? he has moved to the center if anything, like all Presidents must do now in order to hold office.

Its rather tiring watching you wannabe <insulting term omitted> attempting to make what you state as a fact.

No you are not pragmatic, you are reactionary at best, Partisan at best. The only real reason you oppose him are for a few reasons:

You are a <disparaging personal falsehood omitted>
You are a <disparaging reference omitted>, which includes <disparaging reference omitted>.
Or your oppose him because of your real convictions and policies. Which i have found few and far between that these people actually exist.

Now i know i said <disparaging personal falsehood omitted> but dont take it personally, its just a list that you may or may not have things in common with.

Case and point with the Debt ceiling issue. <Empirical error omitted> where willing to risk the world markets and economies because of your hatred of the President ( whatever personal reason you have). Thats not pragmatic, how you went about the issue wasn't either.

You are more dangerous than good, short sighted, just overall counterproductive, and would be laughed out of Washington once the once the doors closed.

You're mistaken. Obama is not the only far left person in his administration. He sidestepped founder-intended Congressional approval for administrative advisers and brought an entire bevy of czars into his circle whose resumes include former Communist Party membership, Alinsky methodologists, and people whose credo is to replace earning a living in the free market with an options system that includes syphoning working conservatives' saved money off and rout it to able-bodied freeloaders who already have a good living living off several welfare checks plus the food stamp bonanza they wangled out of otherwise-intelligent people.

You're merely annoyed because we are refusing to be financially routed by you and your narcissistic family parasites who differ only in modus operandi from the $80-dollar-an-hour panhandler who miraculously and quickly recovers from his life-threatening injuries confining him to a wheelchair at 5 o'clock and disappears into the nearest pub or casino on well-heeled shoes he/she concealed in her stolen shopping cart or rag bag, every day.

Get back to me after you've shaved and washed your filthy mouth and mind out with soap and water.

 

[Oddball]

oh so you would trade a leftwing bigger government for a religious big government guy?

Funny how you always seem to defends these pukes

Said nothing of the sort and I'm defending nothing.

What I'm pointing out -and what is flying clean over the heads of the knee-jerk Boiking fluffers- is that most people, up to and including the nutbar OP, will vote for inSanetorum or (insert party man douchebag here) for the same reason we ended up with the current flake squatting in the WH...That being most voters will fall for image and party affiliation over anything of substance.

Hope that clears it up for y'all.

You are defending Captain anal leakage by using Obama as a deflection.

No this is what you should have said in your very first post in this thread. You didn't you tried to be cute about it and failed.

Oh course that really wasnt the reason people voted for Obama, Sure partly, but not a majority.

I'm defending nothing....He asked a question and was directed to the twirp he defends as an answer....Nothing more complicated or convoluted than that.

The majority voted for Boiking because of party affiliation, the color of his skin and/or they got sucked in by the image projected by media and pop culture...Nothing more.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbeJ_og9vbM]Obama as a "Blank Screen" - Simon Critchley - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

And he says he would?

.

Check out the third video in post 18 of this thread. He absolutely would. In fact, he said he felt like "throwing up" when Kennedy said he wanted the separation of church and state.

 

[Missourian]

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.

Kennedy said the wall of separation must be absolute.

What does absolute mean?

Without exception.

Allowing public advocacy based on religious belief would be an exception, therefore the separation would not be absolute.

Words have meanings.

Santorum is correct, it is unconstitutional to attempt to impose an absolute wall of separation between religion (church) and government policy (state).

 

[Dr Grump]

oh so you would trade a leftwing bigger government for a religious big government guy?

Funny how you always seem to defends these pukes

Said nothing of the sort and I'm defending nothing.

What I'm pointing out -and what is flying clean over the heads of the knee-jerk Boiking fluffers- is that most people, up to and including the nutbar OP, will vote for inSanetorum or (insert party man douchebag here) for the same reason we ended up with the current flake squatting in the WH...That being most voters will fall for image and party affiliation over anything of substance.

Hope that clears it up for y'all.

You are defending Captain anal leakage by using Obama as a deflection.

No this is what you should have said in your very first post in this thread. You didn't you tried to be cute about it and failed.

Oh course that really wasnt the reason people voted for Obama, Sure partly, but not a majority.

Odd's one of these guys who is full of criticism, but has no solution for anything. And if, on the odd occasion, he does have a solution it's so far out of whack and improbable that it beggar's belief...

 

[Intense]

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.

Both are inexorably intertwined...there's no escaping it. To separate the two as has been done means the doom of all the Founders fought for.

Agreed. JFK did imply that it was wrong to take Orders, Direction from the Pulpit, both Directly and Indirectly. He may have gone further, if Voice is Council or Advice, we Each have a Right to that Under Free Speech. The Churches possess no negative Rights in Voice, Speech, Value, Ethics, Ideal, in Thought, in Word, in Action.

When considering Remedy, Correct Action, when is it not Important to consider Each Factor, and weigh and measure It's Relevance? When is it more important who the messenger is, that what the message is? Why confuse the messenger with the message at all? If it's the piece of the puzzle you are looking for, what could be more important? Are we speaking of Justice or Vanity?

 

[Dr Grump]

Santorum is correct, it is unconstitutional to attempt to impose an absolute wall of separation between religion (church) and government policy (state).

Why is it unconstitutional? Can you name one society where one religion over rides all others, and it is a peaceful and harmonious place to live? There is a reason your FF's put that little clause in there...they knew, having come from Puritan stock, what happens when a particular religion gets its way..

Let's not stuff around here. When Santorum says religion should have some say in government, he is talking about one religion is particular. The guy is a moonbat....

 

[Oddball]

Odd's one of these guys who is full of criticism, but has no solution for anything. And if, on the odd occasion, he does have a solution it's so far out of whack and improbable that it beggar's belief...

Right...I don't suffer from the delusion that I'm here to do the whole world a big fat favor, with my self-righteous do-goodery....All paid for by everyone else and imposed at gunpoint, if necessary.

You would do well to give that a whirl.

 

[Intense]

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.

Kennedy said the wall of separation must be absolute.

What does absolute mean?

Without exception.

Allowing public advocacy based on religious belief would be an exception, therefore the separation would not be absolute.

Words have meanings.

Santorum is correct, it is unconstitutional to attempt to impose an absolute wall of separation between religion (church) and government policy (state).

Agreed. Where JFK is Correct, is in Government receiving Dictate from the Church. Witness, Speech, is not Dictate.

 

[Dr Grump]

Odd's one of these guys who is full of criticism, but has no solution for anything. And if, on the odd occasion, he does have a solution it's so far out of whack and improbable that it beggar's belief...

Right...I don't suffer from the delusion that I'm here to do the whole world a big fat favor, with my self-righteous do-goodery....All paid for by everyone else and imposed at gunpoint, if necessary.

You would do well to give that a whirl.

No, what you suffer from is cynicism on a grand scale. Luckily we all don't suffer from it, or we'd still be at the horse and cart stage of evolution - and even that might be stretching it...

 

[The T]

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

Both are inexorably intertwined...there's no escaping it. To separate the two as has been done means the doom of all the Founders fought for.

Agreed. JFK did imply that it was wrong to take Orders, Direction from the Pulpit, both Directly and Indirectly. He may have gone further, if Voice is Council or Advice, we Each have a Right to that Under Free Speech. The Churches possess no negative Rights in Voice, Speech, Value, Ethics, Ideal, in Thought, in Word, in Action.

When considering Remedy, Correct Action, when is it not Important to consider Each Factor, and weigh and measure It's Relevance? When is it more important who the messenger is, that what the message is? Why confuse the messenger with the message at all? If it's the piece of the puzzle you are looking for, what could be more important? Are we speaking of Justice or Vanity?

I can say this much? To the left side of the aisle...the latter applies...it shows in thier vocalizations/actions.

Religion teaches much...largest of which is responsibility, and honor.

Now whom could be against such results from a leader?

Fears of theocracy are unfounded...unless you reside in Iran or some such other insane place where the rules of liberty don't apply.