|
United States7483 Posts
On February 23 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 05:08 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 04:57 JoelB wrote:
Just read in german news about that new "favourite" republican candidate Santorum or Sanatorium where he should better go to ... Seriously, what happend to Lincoln's party? They got to be kidding me ... if he wins (which he prolly wont since there are still people in america that actually use their brain) america to me is on an iranian level - just with already existing nuclear weapons ... religious fanatics on all sides. Be it islamists on the the one and ultra-conservative christians (read: rights) on the other ... moderate Europe is surrounded by fanatics. I fear for the future of us and this planet. Comparing Santorum to Iran is pretty stupid. In what ways? Obviously some of the culture is different, and the religion itself is different, but Santorum wants the U.S. to be a theocracy with christian law, which is pretty much how Iran is run (only Islamic law instead). In either case, a lot of freedoms go out the window. Theocracy has been tried before on this side of the Atlantic, and I believe the results were the Salem Witch Trials. Bringing up the Salem Witch Trial is ridiculous because they predate the United States. There were no Constitutional protections back then. In fact, it's the presence of the Constitution that makes comparisons to Iran so ludicrous. Iran KILLS homosexuals and imprisons (or kills) people who are preach non-Muslim beliefs. That stuff simply doesn't happen in the US, particularly at an institutional level. Santorum's views are largely within the confines of the Constitution as currently defined and interpreted by the courts (his argument that states should be allowed to regulate birth control is an exception, but there are a lot of people who believe that he is right on that point and that the US Supreme Court got Griswold wrong). Are his views of birth control and gay marriage influenced by his religion? Sure. Nevertheless, please point out which part of Santorum's platform is even remotely comparable to what the Iranian government does.
Santorum's entire desire (he's said so on occasion) is to institute christian law, which is unconstitutional, so clearly he doesn't give a shit about the constitution. The constitution can be amended, just because something is unconstitutional doesn't mean it will never happen.
Some Santorum quotes from his presidential campaign:
"our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law."
"not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
"We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law."
"as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation." (referring to discordance between our laws and "god's law") Agitation, I should point out as Santorum intends it to mean, refers to Satan's influence.
"We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change."
Santorum supports a federal Constitutional amendment that would ban marriage equality. Yes, I'm not exaggerating when I say he wants to change the constitution.
He wants to amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, and with it a woman’s right to choose.
He wants to amend the constitution to eliminate things like social security and medicare, so they can be replaced by "faith based initiatives".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment
Fortunately it failed, but yeah, he wants every student to be taught intelligent design and not be taught evolution, and tried to attach it as a rider to no child left behind.
The man wants to amend the constitution to turn America into a christian theocracy. I don't see how you can reject this comparison. He's a complete nutjob, and he wants a theocracy. Obviously he's not talking about executing homosexuals, but a man who goes around talking about Satan in actual speeches probably isn't too far away from turning that corner, especially when the bible he holds so dear talks about murder and executions on a regular basis.
|
The funniest thing about this is ... the Pope, the head of all christians just recently been to germany and had a speech in our parliament where he actually said the following:
"I would say that the appearance of the ecological movement in german politics since the 70s may not have ripped the windows open but was and is indeed a scream for fresh air - something one should not miss or reject because one finds to much irrationality within it.
Young people became aware that something with our treatment of nature is not that way it should be. Matter itself is not just material for our creation but that earth wears her dignity in itself and that we must follow her order. [...]. If there is something wrong with our handling of reality we are forced to seriously think about the whole and we are all pointed to the question of the origins of our culture. [...] Meanwhile, the importance of Ecology is undisputed. We must adhere to the voice of nature and respond accordingly."
Those are the words of Pope Benedictus XVI. He represents the core of christian believe. His words are beyond questioning (if you believe in it). American's, Y U NOT FOLLOW YOUR OWN RELIGION?
Original:
+ Show Spoiler +Ich würde sagen, daß das Auftreten der ökologischen Bewegung in der deutschen Politik seit den 70er Jahren zwar wohl nicht Fenster aufgerissen hat, aber ein Schrei nach frischer Luft gewesen ist und bleibt, den man nicht überhören darf und nicht beiseite schieben kann, weil man zu viel Irrationales darin findet.
Jungen Menschen war bewußt geworden, daß irgend etwas in unserem Umgang mit der Natur nicht stimmt. Daß Materie nicht nur Material für unser Machen ist, sondern daß die Erde selbst ihre Würde in sich trägt und wir ihrer Weisung folgen müssen. [...] Wenn in unserem Umgang mit der Wirklichkeit etwas nicht stimmt, dann müssen wir alle ernstlich über das Ganze nachdenken und sind alle auf die Frage nach den Grundlagen unserer Kultur überhaupt verwiesen. [...] Die Bedeutung der Ökologie ist inzwischen unbestritten. Wir müssen auf die Sprache der Natur hören und entsprechend antworten.
|
On February 23 2012 06:10 JoelB wrote:The funniest thing about this is ... the Pope, the head of all christians just recently been to germany and had a speech in our parliament where he actually said the following: "I would say that the appearance of the ecological movement in german politics since the 70s may not have ripped the windows open but was and is indeed a scream for fresh air - something one should not miss or thrust because one finds to much irrationality within it. Young people became aware that something with our treatment of nature is not that way it should be. Matter itself is not just material for our creation but that earth wears her dignity in itself and that we must follow her order. [...]. If there is something wrong with our handling of reality we are forced to seriously think about the whole and we are all pointed to the question of the origins of our culture. [...] Meanwhile, the importance of Ecology is undisputed. We must adhere to the voice of nature and respond accordingly." Those are the words of Pope Benedictus XVI. He represents the core of christian believe. His words are beyond questioning (if you believe in it). American's, Y U NOT FOLLOW YOUR OWN RELIGION? Original: + Show Spoiler +Ich würde sagen, daß das Auftreten der ökologischen Bewegung in der deutschen Politik seit den 70er Jahren zwar wohl nicht Fenster aufgerissen hat, aber ein Schrei nach frischer Luft gewesen ist und bleibt, den man nicht überhören darf und nicht beiseite schieben kann, weil man zu viel Irrationales darin findet.
Jungen Menschen war bewußt geworden, daß irgend etwas in unserem Umgang mit der Natur nicht stimmt. Daß Materie nicht nur Material für unser Machen ist, sondern daß die Erde selbst ihre Würde in sich trägt und wir ihrer Weisung folgen müssen. [...] Wenn in unserem Umgang mit der Wirklichkeit etwas nicht stimmt, dann müssen wir alle ernstlich über das Ganze nachdenken und sind alle auf die Frage nach den Grundlagen unserer Kultur überhaupt verwiesen. [...] Die Bedeutung der Ökologie ist inzwischen unbestritten. Wir müssen auf die Sprache der Natur hören und entsprechend antworten.
The Pope is the head of Catholics, not all Christians.
Just as a point of clarification 
|
On February 23 2012 06:12 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 06:10 JoelB wrote:The funniest thing about this is ... the Pope, the head of all christians just recently been to germany and had a speech in our parliament where he actually said the following: "I would say that the appearance of the ecological movement in german politics since the 70s may not have ripped the windows open but was and is indeed a scream for fresh air - something one should not miss or thrust because one finds to much irrationality within it. Young people became aware that something with our treatment of nature is not that way it should be. Matter itself is not just material for our creation but that earth wears her dignity in itself and that we must follow her order. [...]. If there is something wrong with our handling of reality we are forced to seriously think about the whole and we are all pointed to the question of the origins of our culture. [...] Meanwhile, the importance of Ecology is undisputed. We must adhere to the voice of nature and respond accordingly." Those are the words of Pope Benedictus XVI. He represents the core of christian believe. His words are beyond questioning (if you believe in it). American's, Y U NOT FOLLOW YOUR OWN RELIGION? Original: + Show Spoiler +Ich würde sagen, daß das Auftreten der ökologischen Bewegung in der deutschen Politik seit den 70er Jahren zwar wohl nicht Fenster aufgerissen hat, aber ein Schrei nach frischer Luft gewesen ist und bleibt, den man nicht überhören darf und nicht beiseite schieben kann, weil man zu viel Irrationales darin findet.
Jungen Menschen war bewußt geworden, daß irgend etwas in unserem Umgang mit der Natur nicht stimmt. Daß Materie nicht nur Material für unser Machen ist, sondern daß die Erde selbst ihre Würde in sich trägt und wir ihrer Weisung folgen müssen. [...] Wenn in unserem Umgang mit der Wirklichkeit etwas nicht stimmt, dann müssen wir alle ernstlich über das Ganze nachdenken und sind alle auf die Frage nach den Grundlagen unserer Kultur überhaupt verwiesen. [...] Die Bedeutung der Ökologie ist inzwischen unbestritten. Wir müssen auf die Sprache der Natur hören und entsprechend antworten. The Pope is the head of Catholics, not all Christians. Just as a point of clarification
The Church would argue about that  ... nevertheless Santorum is a member of a roman - CATHOLIC (!!!!) community.
|
On February 23 2012 06:12 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 06:10 JoelB wrote:The funniest thing about this is ... the Pope, the head of all christians just recently been to germany and had a speech in our parliament where he actually said the following: "I would say that the appearance of the ecological movement in german politics since the 70s may not have ripped the windows open but was and is indeed a scream for fresh air - something one should not miss or thrust because one finds to much irrationality within it. Young people became aware that something with our treatment of nature is not that way it should be. Matter itself is not just material for our creation but that earth wears her dignity in itself and that we must follow her order. [...]. If there is something wrong with our handling of reality we are forced to seriously think about the whole and we are all pointed to the question of the origins of our culture. [...] Meanwhile, the importance of Ecology is undisputed. We must adhere to the voice of nature and respond accordingly." Those are the words of Pope Benedictus XVI. He represents the core of christian believe. His words are beyond questioning (if you believe in it). American's, Y U NOT FOLLOW YOUR OWN RELIGION? Original: + Show Spoiler +Ich würde sagen, daß das Auftreten der ökologischen Bewegung in der deutschen Politik seit den 70er Jahren zwar wohl nicht Fenster aufgerissen hat, aber ein Schrei nach frischer Luft gewesen ist und bleibt, den man nicht überhören darf und nicht beiseite schieben kann, weil man zu viel Irrationales darin findet.
Jungen Menschen war bewußt geworden, daß irgend etwas in unserem Umgang mit der Natur nicht stimmt. Daß Materie nicht nur Material für unser Machen ist, sondern daß die Erde selbst ihre Würde in sich trägt und wir ihrer Weisung folgen müssen. [...] Wenn in unserem Umgang mit der Wirklichkeit etwas nicht stimmt, dann müssen wir alle ernstlich über das Ganze nachdenken und sind alle auf die Frage nach den Grundlagen unserer Kultur überhaupt verwiesen. [...] Die Bedeutung der Ökologie ist inzwischen unbestritten. Wir müssen auf die Sprache der Natur hören und entsprechend antworten. The Pope is the head of Catholics, not all Christians. Just as a point of clarification
Santorum is a Catholic, and it's amusing because even beyond the papacy, Santorum's views conflict widely with the socio-political positions of the American Catholic Church on many, many issues.
|
On February 23 2012 05:51 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 05:08 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 04:57 JoelB wrote:
Just read in german news about that new "favourite" republican candidate Santorum or Sanatorium where he should better go to ... Seriously, what happend to Lincoln's party? They got to be kidding me ... if he wins (which he prolly wont since there are still people in america that actually use their brain) america to me is on an iranian level - just with already existing nuclear weapons ... religious fanatics on all sides. Be it islamists on the the one and ultra-conservative christians (read: rights) on the other ... moderate Europe is surrounded by fanatics. I fear for the future of us and this planet. Comparing Santorum to Iran is pretty stupid. In what ways? Obviously some of the culture is different, and the religion itself is different, but Santorum wants the U.S. to be a theocracy with christian law, which is pretty much how Iran is run (only Islamic law instead). In either case, a lot of freedoms go out the window. Theocracy has been tried before on this side of the Atlantic, and I believe the results were the Salem Witch Trials. Bringing up the Salem Witch Trial is ridiculous because they predate the United States. There were no Constitutional protections back then. In fact, it's the presence of the Constitution that makes comparisons to Iran so ludicrous. Iran KILLS homosexuals and imprisons (or kills) people who are preach non-Muslim beliefs. That stuff simply doesn't happen in the US, particularly at an institutional level. Santorum's views are largely within the confines of the Constitution as currently defined and interpreted by the courts (his argument that states should be allowed to regulate birth control is an exception, but there are a lot of people who believe that he is right on that point and that the US Supreme Court got Griswold wrong). Are his views of birth control and gay marriage influenced by his religion? Sure. Nevertheless, please point out which part of Santorum's platform is even remotely comparable to what the Iranian government does. Santorum's entire desire (he's said so on occasion) is to institute christian law, which is unconstitutional, so clearly he doesn't give a shit about the constitution. The constitution can be amended, just because something is unconstitutional doesn't mean it will never happen. Some Santorum quotes from his presidential campaign: "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law." "not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law." "as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation." (referring to discordance between our laws and "god's law") Agitation, I should point out as Santorum intends it to mean, refers to Satan's influence. "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change." Santorum supports a federal Constitutional amendment that would ban marriage equality. Yes, I'm not exaggerating when I say he wants to change the constitution. He wants to amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, and with it a woman’s right to choose. He wants to amend the constitution to eliminate things like social security and medicare, so they can be replaced by "faith based initiatives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_AmendmentFortunately it failed, but yeah, he wants every student to be taught intelligent design and not be taught evolution, and tried to attach it as a rider to no child left behind. The man wants to amend the constitution to turn America into a christian theocracy. I don't see how you can reject this comparison. He's a complete nutjob, and he wants a theocracy. Obviously he's not talking about executing homosexuals, but a man who goes around talking about Satan in actual speeches probably isn't too far away from turning that corner, especially when the bible he holds so dear talks about murder and executions on a regular basis.
Your judgment is very clearly clouded by your resentment towards Christianity in general. A couple of your quotes were just him stating his personal beliefs.
Also, the idea that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade really doesn't say much about anything. A lot of people do. Also, stop making up "rights."
|
Santorum is exactly what the country doesn't need. A theocracy.
|
On February 23 2012 06:27 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 05:51 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 05:08 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 04:57 JoelB wrote:
Just read in german news about that new "favourite" republican candidate Santorum or Sanatorium where he should better go to ... Seriously, what happend to Lincoln's party? They got to be kidding me ... if he wins (which he prolly wont since there are still people in america that actually use their brain) america to me is on an iranian level - just with already existing nuclear weapons ... religious fanatics on all sides. Be it islamists on the the one and ultra-conservative christians (read: rights) on the other ... moderate Europe is surrounded by fanatics. I fear for the future of us and this planet. Comparing Santorum to Iran is pretty stupid. In what ways? Obviously some of the culture is different, and the religion itself is different, but Santorum wants the U.S. to be a theocracy with christian law, which is pretty much how Iran is run (only Islamic law instead). In either case, a lot of freedoms go out the window. Theocracy has been tried before on this side of the Atlantic, and I believe the results were the Salem Witch Trials. Bringing up the Salem Witch Trial is ridiculous because they predate the United States. There were no Constitutional protections back then. In fact, it's the presence of the Constitution that makes comparisons to Iran so ludicrous. Iran KILLS homosexuals and imprisons (or kills) people who are preach non-Muslim beliefs. That stuff simply doesn't happen in the US, particularly at an institutional level. Santorum's views are largely within the confines of the Constitution as currently defined and interpreted by the courts (his argument that states should be allowed to regulate birth control is an exception, but there are a lot of people who believe that he is right on that point and that the US Supreme Court got Griswold wrong). Are his views of birth control and gay marriage influenced by his religion? Sure. Nevertheless, please point out which part of Santorum's platform is even remotely comparable to what the Iranian government does. Santorum's entire desire (he's said so on occasion) is to institute christian law, which is unconstitutional, so clearly he doesn't give a shit about the constitution. The constitution can be amended, just because something is unconstitutional doesn't mean it will never happen. Some Santorum quotes from his presidential campaign: "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law." "not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law." "as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation." (referring to discordance between our laws and "god's law") Agitation, I should point out as Santorum intends it to mean, refers to Satan's influence. "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change." Santorum supports a federal Constitutional amendment that would ban marriage equality. Yes, I'm not exaggerating when I say he wants to change the constitution. He wants to amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, and with it a woman’s right to choose. He wants to amend the constitution to eliminate things like social security and medicare, so they can be replaced by "faith based initiatives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_AmendmentFortunately it failed, but yeah, he wants every student to be taught intelligent design and not be taught evolution, and tried to attach it as a rider to no child left behind. The man wants to amend the constitution to turn America into a christian theocracy. I don't see how you can reject this comparison. He's a complete nutjob, and he wants a theocracy. Obviously he's not talking about executing homosexuals, but a man who goes around talking about Satan in actual speeches probably isn't too far away from turning that corner, especially when the bible he holds so dear talks about murder and executions on a regular basis. Your judgment is very clearly clouded by your resentment towards Christianity in general. A couple of your quotes were just him stating his personal beliefs. Also, the idea that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade really doesn't say much about anything. A lot of people do. Also, stop making up "rights."
Resentment towards Christianity does not require clouded judgement. Quotes of him stating personal beliefs? Precluded by "He wants..." No fucking way! What are you even saying?
You have enough posts to have encountered Argumentum ad populum so you should know better then that. Throw in an empty bullshit claim and I'd say you were either an idiot or purposely being intellectually dishonest. Shame.
|
On February 23 2012 06:17 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 06:12 Elegy wrote:On February 23 2012 06:10 JoelB wrote:The funniest thing about this is ... the Pope, the head of all christians just recently been to germany and had a speech in our parliament where he actually said the following: "I would say that the appearance of the ecological movement in german politics since the 70s may not have ripped the windows open but was and is indeed a scream for fresh air - something one should not miss or thrust because one finds to much irrationality within it. Young people became aware that something with our treatment of nature is not that way it should be. Matter itself is not just material for our creation but that earth wears her dignity in itself and that we must follow her order. [...]. If there is something wrong with our handling of reality we are forced to seriously think about the whole and we are all pointed to the question of the origins of our culture. [...] Meanwhile, the importance of Ecology is undisputed. We must adhere to the voice of nature and respond accordingly." Those are the words of Pope Benedictus XVI. He represents the core of christian believe. His words are beyond questioning (if you believe in it). American's, Y U NOT FOLLOW YOUR OWN RELIGION? Original: + Show Spoiler +Ich würde sagen, daß das Auftreten der ökologischen Bewegung in der deutschen Politik seit den 70er Jahren zwar wohl nicht Fenster aufgerissen hat, aber ein Schrei nach frischer Luft gewesen ist und bleibt, den man nicht überhören darf und nicht beiseite schieben kann, weil man zu viel Irrationales darin findet.
Jungen Menschen war bewußt geworden, daß irgend etwas in unserem Umgang mit der Natur nicht stimmt. Daß Materie nicht nur Material für unser Machen ist, sondern daß die Erde selbst ihre Würde in sich trägt und wir ihrer Weisung folgen müssen. [...] Wenn in unserem Umgang mit der Wirklichkeit etwas nicht stimmt, dann müssen wir alle ernstlich über das Ganze nachdenken und sind alle auf die Frage nach den Grundlagen unserer Kultur überhaupt verwiesen. [...] Die Bedeutung der Ökologie ist inzwischen unbestritten. Wir müssen auf die Sprache der Natur hören und entsprechend antworten. The Pope is the head of Catholics, not all Christians. Just as a point of clarification Santorum is a Catholic, and it's amusing because even beyond the papacy, Santorum's views conflict widely with the socio-political positions of the American Catholic Church on many, many issues.
Actually, since the Pope called for universal health care last year, Santorum is on the RIGHT of the Pope.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 23 2012 06:27 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 05:51 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 05:08 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 04:57 JoelB wrote:
Just read in german news about that new "favourite" republican candidate Santorum or Sanatorium where he should better go to ... Seriously, what happend to Lincoln's party? They got to be kidding me ... if he wins (which he prolly wont since there are still people in america that actually use their brain) america to me is on an iranian level - just with already existing nuclear weapons ... religious fanatics on all sides. Be it islamists on the the one and ultra-conservative christians (read: rights) on the other ... moderate Europe is surrounded by fanatics. I fear for the future of us and this planet. Comparing Santorum to Iran is pretty stupid. In what ways? Obviously some of the culture is different, and the religion itself is different, but Santorum wants the U.S. to be a theocracy with christian law, which is pretty much how Iran is run (only Islamic law instead). In either case, a lot of freedoms go out the window. Theocracy has been tried before on this side of the Atlantic, and I believe the results were the Salem Witch Trials. Bringing up the Salem Witch Trial is ridiculous because they predate the United States. There were no Constitutional protections back then. In fact, it's the presence of the Constitution that makes comparisons to Iran so ludicrous. Iran KILLS homosexuals and imprisons (or kills) people who are preach non-Muslim beliefs. That stuff simply doesn't happen in the US, particularly at an institutional level. Santorum's views are largely within the confines of the Constitution as currently defined and interpreted by the courts (his argument that states should be allowed to regulate birth control is an exception, but there are a lot of people who believe that he is right on that point and that the US Supreme Court got Griswold wrong). Are his views of birth control and gay marriage influenced by his religion? Sure. Nevertheless, please point out which part of Santorum's platform is even remotely comparable to what the Iranian government does. Santorum's entire desire (he's said so on occasion) is to institute christian law, which is unconstitutional, so clearly he doesn't give a shit about the constitution. The constitution can be amended, just because something is unconstitutional doesn't mean it will never happen. Some Santorum quotes from his presidential campaign: "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law." "not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law." "as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation." (referring to discordance between our laws and "god's law") Agitation, I should point out as Santorum intends it to mean, refers to Satan's influence. "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change." Santorum supports a federal Constitutional amendment that would ban marriage equality. Yes, I'm not exaggerating when I say he wants to change the constitution. He wants to amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, and with it a woman’s right to choose. He wants to amend the constitution to eliminate things like social security and medicare, so they can be replaced by "faith based initiatives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_AmendmentFortunately it failed, but yeah, he wants every student to be taught intelligent design and not be taught evolution, and tried to attach it as a rider to no child left behind. The man wants to amend the constitution to turn America into a christian theocracy. I don't see how you can reject this comparison. He's a complete nutjob, and he wants a theocracy. Obviously he's not talking about executing homosexuals, but a man who goes around talking about Satan in actual speeches probably isn't too far away from turning that corner, especially when the bible he holds so dear talks about murder and executions on a regular basis. Your judgment is very clearly clouded by your resentment towards Christianity in general. A couple of your quotes were just him stating his personal beliefs. Also, the idea that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade really doesn't say much about anything. A lot of people do. Also, stop making up "rights."
Seppolevne responded quite succinctly to this for me, so I'll just direct you to read what he wrote above this for my response as well.
Of course I was pointing out his beliefs, the entire point was to show what Santorum wants and believes in: a theocracy.
|
On February 23 2012 06:15 JoelB wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 06:12 Elegy wrote:On February 23 2012 06:10 JoelB wrote:The funniest thing about this is ... the Pope, the head of all christians just recently been to germany and had a speech in our parliament where he actually said the following: "I would say that the appearance of the ecological movement in german politics since the 70s may not have ripped the windows open but was and is indeed a scream for fresh air - something one should not miss or thrust because one finds to much irrationality within it. Young people became aware that something with our treatment of nature is not that way it should be. Matter itself is not just material for our creation but that earth wears her dignity in itself and that we must follow her order. [...]. If there is something wrong with our handling of reality we are forced to seriously think about the whole and we are all pointed to the question of the origins of our culture. [...] Meanwhile, the importance of Ecology is undisputed. We must adhere to the voice of nature and respond accordingly." Those are the words of Pope Benedictus XVI. He represents the core of christian believe. His words are beyond questioning (if you believe in it). American's, Y U NOT FOLLOW YOUR OWN RELIGION? Original: + Show Spoiler +Ich würde sagen, daß das Auftreten der ökologischen Bewegung in der deutschen Politik seit den 70er Jahren zwar wohl nicht Fenster aufgerissen hat, aber ein Schrei nach frischer Luft gewesen ist und bleibt, den man nicht überhören darf und nicht beiseite schieben kann, weil man zu viel Irrationales darin findet.
Jungen Menschen war bewußt geworden, daß irgend etwas in unserem Umgang mit der Natur nicht stimmt. Daß Materie nicht nur Material für unser Machen ist, sondern daß die Erde selbst ihre Würde in sich trägt und wir ihrer Weisung folgen müssen. [...] Wenn in unserem Umgang mit der Wirklichkeit etwas nicht stimmt, dann müssen wir alle ernstlich über das Ganze nachdenken und sind alle auf die Frage nach den Grundlagen unserer Kultur überhaupt verwiesen. [...] Die Bedeutung der Ökologie ist inzwischen unbestritten. Wir müssen auf die Sprache der Natur hören und entsprechend antworten. The Pope is the head of Catholics, not all Christians. Just as a point of clarification The Church would argue about that ... nevertheless Santorum is a member of a roman - CATHOLIC (!!!!) community.
On February 23 2012 06:17 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 06:12 Elegy wrote:On February 23 2012 06:10 JoelB wrote:The funniest thing about this is ... the Pope, the head of all christians just recently been to germany and had a speech in our parliament where he actually said the following: "I would say that the appearance of the ecological movement in german politics since the 70s may not have ripped the windows open but was and is indeed a scream for fresh air - something one should not miss or thrust because one finds to much irrationality within it. Young people became aware that something with our treatment of nature is not that way it should be. Matter itself is not just material for our creation but that earth wears her dignity in itself and that we must follow her order. [...]. If there is something wrong with our handling of reality we are forced to seriously think about the whole and we are all pointed to the question of the origins of our culture. [...] Meanwhile, the importance of Ecology is undisputed. We must adhere to the voice of nature and respond accordingly." Those are the words of Pope Benedictus XVI. He represents the core of christian believe. His words are beyond questioning (if you believe in it). American's, Y U NOT FOLLOW YOUR OWN RELIGION? Original: + Show Spoiler +Ich würde sagen, daß das Auftreten der ökologischen Bewegung in der deutschen Politik seit den 70er Jahren zwar wohl nicht Fenster aufgerissen hat, aber ein Schrei nach frischer Luft gewesen ist und bleibt, den man nicht überhören darf und nicht beiseite schieben kann, weil man zu viel Irrationales darin findet.
Jungen Menschen war bewußt geworden, daß irgend etwas in unserem Umgang mit der Natur nicht stimmt. Daß Materie nicht nur Material für unser Machen ist, sondern daß die Erde selbst ihre Würde in sich trägt und wir ihrer Weisung folgen müssen. [...] Wenn in unserem Umgang mit der Wirklichkeit etwas nicht stimmt, dann müssen wir alle ernstlich über das Ganze nachdenken und sind alle auf die Frage nach den Grundlagen unserer Kultur überhaupt verwiesen. [...] Die Bedeutung der Ökologie ist inzwischen unbestritten. Wir müssen auf die Sprache der Natur hören und entsprechend antworten. The Pope is the head of Catholics, not all Christians. Just as a point of clarification Santorum is a Catholic, and it's amusing because even beyond the papacy, Santorum's views conflict widely with the socio-political positions of the American Catholic Church on many, many issues.
For some reason I always thought Santorum was Baptist. Weird. Then again, I mainly follow his campaign for the hilarity of his quotes.
|
This thread is getting stormed by people indignated by stupid comments from the candidates. Please let someone defend the kind of position taken before smelling blood and/or analyze the comments a little more balanced than as pure theocrazy, pure libertarianism, pure populism or pure schizophrenism!
On another note:
Michigan and Arizona are up next on the tour de Republican America.
In Michigan the two fronthorses Santorum and Romney are very very close to being tied! The momentum seems to have swung a bit in Romneys favour and it will be interesting to see what happens as we get closer to the election.
In Arizona everything points to Mitt Romney and that with a pretty large margin.
Washington (non-binding) is largely at Santorums side at the moment.
On super-tuesday:
Ohio has an advantage for Santorum at the moment.
Georgia is mostly unknown, with a free falling Gingrith in the lead still and Romney + Santorum at about a tie. Massachusetts is a earthquake of Romney-support (what choice?).
The rest seems unknown so far.,
Numbers are from:
Source
|
I want to point out that in his three "wins", Santorum got... approximately 30,000 less votes than in his third-place finish in Florida. That's combined, by the way.
What a joke, momentum my heine. It's all the media.
|
Netherlands6068 Posts
Next debate is in a couple of hours right? Romney vs. Santorum should be interesting, hard for Romney to really position himself other then 'more moderate', which doesn't play well in primaries. Santorum - Gingrich might be interesting too, with Gingrich arguing earlier on that Santorum should drop out in order to have 1 real conservative candidate, lets see if he sticks with that logic ;p. Plus Gingrich on stage is always entertainment for the whole family.
|
On February 23 2012 08:10 ticklishmusic wrote:
I want to point out that in his three "wins", Santorum got... approximately 30,000 less votes than in his third-place finish in Florida. That's combined, by the way.
What a joke, momentum my heine. It's all the media.
With a much smaller sample size, and he's leading in virtually every national poll at the moment.
Don't think this momentum will hold, but its definitely real.
|
On February 23 2012 07:01 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 06:27 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 05:51 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 05:08 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 04:57 JoelB wrote:
Just read in german news about that new "favourite" republican candidate Santorum or Sanatorium where he should better go to ... Seriously, what happend to Lincoln's party? They got to be kidding me ... if he wins (which he prolly wont since there are still people in america that actually use their brain) america to me is on an iranian level - just with already existing nuclear weapons ... religious fanatics on all sides. Be it islamists on the the one and ultra-conservative christians (read: rights) on the other ... moderate Europe is surrounded by fanatics. I fear for the future of us and this planet. Comparing Santorum to Iran is pretty stupid. In what ways? Obviously some of the culture is different, and the religion itself is different, but Santorum wants the U.S. to be a theocracy with christian law, which is pretty much how Iran is run (only Islamic law instead). In either case, a lot of freedoms go out the window. Theocracy has been tried before on this side of the Atlantic, and I believe the results were the Salem Witch Trials. Bringing up the Salem Witch Trial is ridiculous because they predate the United States. There were no Constitutional protections back then. In fact, it's the presence of the Constitution that makes comparisons to Iran so ludicrous. Iran KILLS homosexuals and imprisons (or kills) people who are preach non-Muslim beliefs. That stuff simply doesn't happen in the US, particularly at an institutional level. Santorum's views are largely within the confines of the Constitution as currently defined and interpreted by the courts (his argument that states should be allowed to regulate birth control is an exception, but there are a lot of people who believe that he is right on that point and that the US Supreme Court got Griswold wrong). Are his views of birth control and gay marriage influenced by his religion? Sure. Nevertheless, please point out which part of Santorum's platform is even remotely comparable to what the Iranian government does. Santorum's entire desire (he's said so on occasion) is to institute christian law, which is unconstitutional, so clearly he doesn't give a shit about the constitution. The constitution can be amended, just because something is unconstitutional doesn't mean it will never happen. Some Santorum quotes from his presidential campaign: "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law." "not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law." "as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation." (referring to discordance between our laws and "god's law") Agitation, I should point out as Santorum intends it to mean, refers to Satan's influence. "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change." Santorum supports a federal Constitutional amendment that would ban marriage equality. Yes, I'm not exaggerating when I say he wants to change the constitution. He wants to amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, and with it a woman’s right to choose. He wants to amend the constitution to eliminate things like social security and medicare, so they can be replaced by "faith based initiatives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_AmendmentFortunately it failed, but yeah, he wants every student to be taught intelligent design and not be taught evolution, and tried to attach it as a rider to no child left behind. The man wants to amend the constitution to turn America into a christian theocracy. I don't see how you can reject this comparison. He's a complete nutjob, and he wants a theocracy. Obviously he's not talking about executing homosexuals, but a man who goes around talking about Satan in actual speeches probably isn't too far away from turning that corner, especially when the bible he holds so dear talks about murder and executions on a regular basis. Your judgment is very clearly clouded by your resentment towards Christianity in general. A couple of your quotes were just him stating his personal beliefs. Also, the idea that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade really doesn't say much about anything. A lot of people do. Also, stop making up "rights." Seppolevne responded quite succinctly to this for me, so I'll just direct you to read what he wrote above this for my response as well. Of course I was pointing out his beliefs, the entire point was to show what Santorum wants and believes in: a theocracy.
I'm guessing the quote about the god of abraham was meant as an addition to the previous quote, not seperate? Also, I don't see anything wrong with this one:
"We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change."
I also don't see what Roe v. Wade has anything to do with Iran.
I don't see any problem with talking about Satan in "actual speeches."
I also don't see any problem with teaching the possibility of intelligent design and offering at least the possibility of an alternative evolution (with nothing sparking or driving it). From what I understand, the amendment wanted to just have the debate between the 2. I could be wrong. point it out if I am. I mean I'm kind of shooting from the hip here so hopefully I don't make too much of an ass of myself, but intelligent design doesn't necessarily conflict with evolution.
I don't think I'd agree with Santorum if he outright denies any existence of evolution. You can argue against evolution to a degree, but you can't deny adaptation to at least SOME degree. I'd be interested in knowing exactly what he believes about it. Do you have any specific quotes from him about that?
The bottom line is this is all weak, at best. Wow, you found some pretty generic quotes from a long-time politician. You really just don't like the fact that he's so open about his Christianity. There's no way he'd do anything to turn the US into a "theocracy" and to even utter the word Iran in comparison to Rick Santorum is preposterous.
|
On February 23 2012 08:12 SerpentFlame wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 08:10 ticklishmusic wrote:
I want to point out that in his three "wins", Santorum got... approximately 30,000 less votes than in his third-place finish in Florida. That's combined, by the way.
What a joke, momentum my heine. It's all the media. With a much smaller sample size, and he's leading in virtually every national poll at the moment. Don't think this momentum will hold, but its definitely real.
Because people listen to the media. The media says no one likes Romney. The media says that Santorum is OMG DOING WELL. Then people say they don't like Romney. Then people say SANTORUM DOING WELL HE CAN WIN SUPPORT.
It's silly.
|
On February 23 2012 03:32 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 01:40 stokes17 wrote:On February 23 2012 00:55 Jibba wrote:On February 22 2012 23:55 DoubleReed wrote:
Uh well many Americans consider religion to be a personal private matter. Consulting religious leaders wouldn't necessarily make a lot of sense (from a personal or political perspective). Saying that they are atheists which was a very small minority ten years ago just seems unrealistic. Unfortunately, it makes a lot of sense from a political perspective. On February 22 2012 10:45 Probulous wrote:On February 22 2012 05:33 koreasilver wrote:
Obviously not. At this point I'm more interested in the 2016 elections, really. Yeah me too. I assume Hilary would be the democratic nominee but who gets the Rep nomination. If we assume that Obama wins this year whoever get the rep nomination will have done serious damage to their support base. For example if Romney wins the nomination but loses the election because he doesn't ignite massive republican support, he would have had a shot a the presidency twice and failed both times (once to get the nomination and once in an election). So his type of middle of the road candidacy obviously isn't viable so the 2016 candidate would likely be more conservative. Alternatively, if one of the crazies (eg Santorum) gets the nomination and loses, does that mean that the ultra-conservative christian wing of the party will lose influence? Would you expect a more reasonable candidate in 2016 or a further shift rightwards? I mean if the reps can't put a winning candidate up against Obama with the economy in the state it is in, they will have serious trouble in 2016 when presumably things will look better. 2016 will actually have a very deep field. Unless they all choose to sit out for personal reasons, it's likely to have many more moderate front runners: Pawlenty, Daniels, Christie, Ryan, maybe Jindal rises from the dead. Yea A lot of people don't realize this election (2012 rep primary) is basically made up of people who don't actually expect to win the presidency. I believe a running incumbent has lost 5 out of 19 races he's ran in (and I'd say Ford and Carter basically had their fate sealed before the election even began.) And A GOP candidate who lost the presidency has never been allowed to run again. SO, if I am Palin, or Christie, or Daniels, or Huckabee I'm sitting watching while these 2012 morons ruin each others careers trying to get a chance to go against the Osama Killer, waiting for my chance to win an open election in 2016. So yea the GOP will for sure give a better primary showing in 2016 (like seriously this 2012 field was Disgusting in the funniest way possible.) A field made up of the 4 you mentioned is still a pretty sad field. Palin is kind of a joke after she sold herself to Fox, and even if she spends the next four years "smarting" herself up, she's going to have to deal with the media portrayal and ingrained public opinion. I imagine by 2016 LGBT rights will have made significant progress, and Chris Christie will be remembered as that governor who vetoed gay marriage. Huckabee... is like Santorum. Come on, the guy said homosexuality was a public health risk. He doesn't believe in evolution either. Daniels could make a good candidate though. Jindal is a smart guy, but he needs to figure out how to run Louisiana properly before he tries the US.
I mean I basically agree with you. But I am pretty sure if you compare those guys to Cain, Perry, Bauchman, santorium, Gingrich and Romney- you have to agree the GOP's best guys are on the sidelines in 2012. Which was my basic point; the GOP will be much stronger in 2016 than they are in 2012.
|
Netherlands6068 Posts
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 23 2012 09:31 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 07:01 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 06:27 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 05:51 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 05:08 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2012 04:57 JoelB wrote:
Just read in german news about that new "favourite" republican candidate Santorum or Sanatorium where he should better go to ... Seriously, what happend to Lincoln's party? They got to be kidding me ... if he wins (which he prolly wont since there are still people in america that actually use their brain) america to me is on an iranian level - just with already existing nuclear weapons ... religious fanatics on all sides. Be it islamists on the the one and ultra-conservative christians (read: rights) on the other ... moderate Europe is surrounded by fanatics. I fear for the future of us and this planet. Comparing Santorum to Iran is pretty stupid. In what ways? Obviously some of the culture is different, and the religion itself is different, but Santorum wants the U.S. to be a theocracy with christian law, which is pretty much how Iran is run (only Islamic law instead). In either case, a lot of freedoms go out the window. Theocracy has been tried before on this side of the Atlantic, and I believe the results were the Salem Witch Trials. Bringing up the Salem Witch Trial is ridiculous because they predate the United States. There were no Constitutional protections back then. In fact, it's the presence of the Constitution that makes comparisons to Iran so ludicrous. Iran KILLS homosexuals and imprisons (or kills) people who are preach non-Muslim beliefs. That stuff simply doesn't happen in the US, particularly at an institutional level. Santorum's views are largely within the confines of the Constitution as currently defined and interpreted by the courts (his argument that states should be allowed to regulate birth control is an exception, but there are a lot of people who believe that he is right on that point and that the US Supreme Court got Griswold wrong). Are his views of birth control and gay marriage influenced by his religion? Sure. Nevertheless, please point out which part of Santorum's platform is even remotely comparable to what the Iranian government does. Santorum's entire desire (he's said so on occasion) is to institute christian law, which is unconstitutional, so clearly he doesn't give a shit about the constitution. The constitution can be amended, just because something is unconstitutional doesn't mean it will never happen. Some Santorum quotes from his presidential campaign: "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law." "not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law." "as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation." (referring to discordance between our laws and "god's law") Agitation, I should point out as Santorum intends it to mean, refers to Satan's influence. "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change." Santorum supports a federal Constitutional amendment that would ban marriage equality. Yes, I'm not exaggerating when I say he wants to change the constitution. He wants to amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, and with it a woman’s right to choose. He wants to amend the constitution to eliminate things like social security and medicare, so they can be replaced by "faith based initiatives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_AmendmentFortunately it failed, but yeah, he wants every student to be taught intelligent design and not be taught evolution, and tried to attach it as a rider to no child left behind. The man wants to amend the constitution to turn America into a christian theocracy. I don't see how you can reject this comparison. He's a complete nutjob, and he wants a theocracy. Obviously he's not talking about executing homosexuals, but a man who goes around talking about Satan in actual speeches probably isn't too far away from turning that corner, especially when the bible he holds so dear talks about murder and executions on a regular basis. Your judgment is very clearly clouded by your resentment towards Christianity in general. A couple of your quotes were just him stating his personal beliefs. Also, the idea that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade really doesn't say much about anything. A lot of people do. Also, stop making up "rights." Seppolevne responded quite succinctly to this for me, so I'll just direct you to read what he wrote above this for my response as well. Of course I was pointing out his beliefs, the entire point was to show what Santorum wants and believes in: a theocracy. I'm guessing the quote about the god of abraham was meant as an addition to the previous quote, not seperate? Also, I don't see anything wrong with this one: "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change." I also don't see what Roe v. Wade has anything to do with Iran. I don't see any problem with talking about Satan in "actual speeches." I also don't see any problem with teaching the possibility of intelligent design and offering at least the possibility of an alternative evolution (with nothing sparking or driving it). From what I understand, the amendment wanted to just have the debate between the 2. I could be wrong. point it out if I am. I mean I'm kind of shooting from the hip here so hopefully I don't make too much of an ass of myself, but intelligent design doesn't necessarily conflict with evolution. I don't think I'd agree with Santorum if he outright denies any existence of evolution. You can argue against evolution to a degree, but you can't deny adaptation to at least SOME degree. I'd be interested in knowing exactly what he believes about it. Do you have any specific quotes from him about that? The bottom line is this is all weak, at best. Wow, you found some pretty generic quotes from a long-time politician. You really just don't like the fact that he's so open about his Christianity. There's no way he'd do anything to turn the US into a "theocracy" and to even utter the word Iran in comparison to Rick Santorum is preposterous.
Ah, here's the disconnect: you actually don't see any problem with a candidate wanting a theocracy, thus why you saw no issue with what he's said. Hint: science classes are supposed to teach science. Fact: intelligent design is NOT science. Fact: evolution IS science. There's absolutely no way to argue this from any sort of informed background, it's simply the way science works. What's wrong with teaching intelligent design is that it's made up, has no substantiating evidence at all, and it's just a way of shoving your religion down the throats of people who don't follow your religion (those who do are going to learn about intelligent design outside of the school setting anyway). The supreme court ruled this exact same way. If you don't understand the scientific method, that's your failing and you should educate yourself on this matter (it's very important, everyone should at least know what science actually is), but intelligent design isn't science, it isn't a competing theory (nobody competent even takes this remotely seriously).
In fact, I'll provide a brief explanation as to why it isn't a competing theory: In science, a theory is the highest status any hypothesis (intelligent design is a hypothesis) can attain. In order to attain the status of being a theory (note: gravity is a theory, special relativity is a theory, the earth being round is a theory), the hypothesis must follow the entirety of the scientific method, and survive and pass through every stage of the method.
The Scientific method:
Step 1: Ask a question
Step 2: Research the subject (gather information)
Step 3: Form a hypothesis to answer the question
Step 4: Design and create an experiment to test your hypothesis
Step 5: Conduct the experiment, and observe. Record all observations and methodology as precisely and accurately as possible.
Step 6: Share your results with the scientific community at large for peer review and independent testing.
Step 7: If the results seem useful, conduct further experiments to continue testing. If not, revise or abandon the hypothesis. Start again from step 3.
What's wrong with intelligent design? The inventor of this hypothesis got to step 3 and stopped. There is no experiment to test it. By design, the hypothesis (religion in general actually) cannot be tested, and is cleverly designed so that negative results do not disprove the hypothesis (technically speaking, proving a negative is impossible, that's why the burden of proof is on the claimant: you have to prove something happened, not prove it didn't happen). There's no peer review of results, because there are no results. It isn't science, and evolution, which is science, has gone through this method enough times that it's not even really questioned anymore by people who are expert in the field. I simply cannot tolerate a candidate who is so anti-science!
As for what's wrong with the quote regarding Judeo-Christian values, is that the 'we' he refers to is all the citizens of the United States (that is the context of the quote). The problem is, not everyone in this country has these values! Not everyone follows the god of these religions, so speaking as if we all do is rejecting the beliefs and values of those who don't agree, and suggesting that they don't have the right to hold those values (these values being written into law would deny the right to reject these values). Anytime someone talks about how their religious values are superior, they are saying that their religion is flat out better. The problem is that everyone has the right to their own religion, and that unless you can somehow prove that yours is better (you can't), you have no leg to stand on to argue that it's better and that others should abandon their religions in favor of yours. The other (worse) part is that he is basically saying that the bible should be taken literally from the original time it was written, and regardless of how times change, we should still follow it. Regardless of new information that comes along, new evidence that suggests we were wrong about something, we shouldn't change. That's what he's saying: he's rejecting progress and trying to get us all back to the dark ages.
What's wrong with talking about Satan in political speeches should be obvious.
Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with Iran, you're correct. However, if you actually read what I wrote (you either didn't read it or didn't understand it), what I wrote is that he wants an amendment to the constitution to overturn Roe v. Wade, not just wants to overturn it. The entire point I was making is that constitutional protections mean nothing when the constitution is changed to eliminate those protections, which is what Santorum wants to do. Mind you, he'd never succeed, but I will not accept a presidential candidate who has this idea to begin with. I should also point out, Santorum agreed with Newt Gingrich on making the judicial branch of the government a subservient branch to the executive branch, rather than a separate branch that is part of the checks and balances system.
And these are not generic quotes. They are not taken out of context, they are very specific quotes taken in context that describes exactly what his intended goals are. He wants to impose his Roman Catholic values on everyone in the country (despite the fact that he apparently doesn't even truly follow the Roman Catholic church).
I have no issue with a presidential candidate being christian. People are allowed to disagree with me on religion, and I don't hold contempt for people for being religious (although I do think it's wrong). I do have contempt for Santorum, because I do have a problem with a presidential candidate attempting to force his religious views on everyone in the entire country. Haven't you ever heard of separation of church and state? You don't have to be an atheist, or even non-christian to see what's wrong with his positions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/2/22/1329953969161/dogman.jpg)
