On Saturday, the presidential hopeful was addressing a group in Ohio when he made the unfortunate assertion that Obama's agenda is:
not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology.
The first reason this is a mistake is that Santorum has decided to make the presidential campaign about religious orthodoxy and introduced theology into politics in an aggressive way. His less than subtle message is that anyone who believes in the Bible, or even takes the Bible seriously, should be suspect of the president who is serving up 'false teachings' referencing Matthew 7:15 which reads: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves."
Santorum's recent comments should be a major turn off to anyone who understands that while all politics are informed by values, religious and secular, we should be very wary when politicians begin to assert religious creedal tests into electoral politics.
Earlier this year I spoke with Senator John Danforth who has thought a lot about religion and politics. Senator Danforth reminded me that:
The language of politics is different than the language of religion -- politics is not religion. The language of religion is based on creedal affirmation, while the language of politics, when it works, is the language of compromise. To confuse politics for religion results in gridlock from the political perspective. To confuse politics for religion from the religious perspective is idolatry.
The second mistake by Sen. Santorum is that his casting stones and judging President Obama's biblical understanding comes at a time when serious questions have to be asked about Sen. Santorum's own grasp of biblical teachings.
At the Detroit Economic Club, Sen. Santorum explained his position on income inequality between the rich and the poor saying: "There is income inequality in America. There always has been and hopefully, and I do say that, there always will be."
Senator Santorum stated this hope for the inequality between the rich and the poor in Detroit -- a city that has suffered from enormous deprivation in the past decades. As Charles Blow reminded readers in the New York Times: "Among the more than 70 cities with populations over 250,000, Detroit's poverty rate topped the list at a whopping 37.6 percent, more than twice the national poverty rate."
Mr. Santorum should be careful in his efforts to score political points using biblical mandates on the same week that he shows such callousness towards the lives of the poor. If we know anything about the concerns of the prophets of the Hebrew Bible and of Jesus of the New Testament, it is that they had harsh words for the rich who grow richer while the poor suffer, and the inequality in America over the last 30 years has become biblically blasphemous.
Rick Santorum was wrong to make his campaign about religious orthodoxy, and wrong again about religious orthodoxy when it came to his own campaign.
Loading Slideshow
Luke 6:20-21
<strong>Luke 6:20-21</strong> Then he looked up at his disciples and said: 'Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
'Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. 'Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
Luke 4:16-19
<strong>Luke 4:16-19</strong> When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written:
'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour.'
Matthew 25:34-36
<strong>Matthew 25:34-36</strong> Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me."
Mark 10:21-22
<strong>Mark 10:21-22</strong> Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.
Mark 12:41-44
<strong>Mark 12:41-44</strong> He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. 42 A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. 43 Then he called his disciples and said to them, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. 44 For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on."
Luke 14:12-14
<strong>Luke 14:12-14</strong> He said also to the one who had invited him, "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."
Luke 16:19-25
<strong>Luke 16:19-25</strong> "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man's table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried.
In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.' But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony.
Luke 11:39-42
<strong>Luke 11:39-42</strong> Then the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? So give for alms those things that are within; and see, everything will be clean for you. "But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God
Luke 12:16-21
<strong>Luke 12:16-21</strong> Then he told them a parable: "The land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself, 'What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?' Then he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, 'Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.' But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?' So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God."
Sen. Rick Santorum has made a serious mistake.
On Saturday, the presidential hopeful was addressing a group in Ohio when he made the unfortunate assertion that Obama's agenda is:
not about you. I...
Sen. Rick Santorum has made a serious mistake.
On Saturday, the presidential hopeful was addressing a group in Ohio when he made the unfortunate assertion that Obama's agenda is:
not about you. I...
BILOXI, Miss. — Rick Santorum's strategy for becoming the Republican presidential nominee comes down to this: prevent Mitt Romney from winning enough delegates to arrive...
Rick Santorum's path to the nomination remains stuck somewhere on the spectrum between improbable and implausible. But at the moment, the candidate has got a...
By STEVE PEOPLES, ASSOCIATED PRESS WILLOUGHBY, Ohio -- Almost as soon as Rick Santorum's advisers outlined a new strategy for staying on message after he...
The First Amendment makes Rick Santorum queasy. During a Sunday (Feb. 26) interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, the Republican presidential candidate said: "What kind of...
LINCOLN PARK, Mich. — Republican Rick Santorum vowed Friday to cut government spending, regulations and entitlement programs during his first 100 days in office if...
Americans may be worried about their jobs, unsure of the future or not satisfied with President Obama. All these things could help the Republicans, but not if they expect voters to be as angry as Rick Santorum.
Reproductive liberty for American women should be as important as any other right. At the end of the day, what women ultimately decide to do with our bodies should remain between us, our partners, our doctors, our God. This is the religious freedom we want.
How can you square the fact that people who claim to follow Jesus seem to disdain the poor, vigorously judge everyone who doesn't agree with them, show no mercy and have a serious mean streak?
Historians recognize that our most cherished beliefs as Americans are branches of a tree with Judeo-Christian roots. Of course, one can share these values without being a Christian or Jew.
It will be a dark day for ALL of us if this man wins. It is not just a Republican or church thing; Santorum has frequently stated that he does not believe a "right to privacy" exists under the Constitution, even within marriage. He is obsessed with our sex life. Do we not have other things to think about in this country? The Republicans running for President also talk about “their” faith. But if you are not of that faith, you may be a danger to the country. This man will be a danger to all of us. We need to start looking at what is best for the country.
This is the first intelligent thing I've ever heard from Santorum. He implies that the Bible is ridiculous mythology. Unfortunately it was almost certainly a mistake in what he wanted to say, rather than an actual cogent thought. There's no such thing as an American politician who would have the gumption to admit that fairy tales from the Bronze Age are silly. Such things are only admitted by... well, just about every politician in every other modern nation these days. Not America, though. You guys are stuck in the Bronze Age. Ridiculous.
Wake_Up_Call: This is the first intelligent thing I've ever heard from
While my religious beliefs are certainly closer to Santorum's than Obama's, I have to say this - what does that have to do with this election?
I care about how a man's faith affects his character. Is he an honest man? Does he care about others?
But really, I have friends who are very faithful Christians who I would never vote for, and I have atheist friends who I would vote for, because I agree with them politically. All things being equal, I'd love to vote for a politician who has a strong, sincere faith. But I am afraid the American political system would probably cause him to compromise so much that his faith might become useless.
While the First Amendment of the Constitution does NOT guarantee separation of church and state, it DOES guarantee freedom of religion.
Jesus himself was the first to suggest separation. when he was asked a political question (should we pay taxes to Caesar) - he gave a completely non-political answer: "Give to Ceasar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
gobucksjoe: While my religious beliefs are certainly closer to Santorum's than
The Constitution does not expressly state that religion and government should be separate. You are correct. It guarantees (as much as a political document can) religious freedom. Take it a step further. How can you even begin to have religious freedom without separation? I refer you to your own last paragraph for the answer, which is (as Jesus also inferred) you can't.
John_Shuck: The Constitution does not expressly state that religion and government
John I agree. I think the government should not be involved at all. I am all for separation (but not what some non-religious people want it to mean.)
The problem is that the last 40-50 years, the courts have gone past separation to the government, in some cases, opposing religion. That is unconstitutional.
We waste a lot of time on stupid things like words - "one nation under god" and "in god we trust" and the 10 commandments on a courtroom or school wall. These are non-issues. We are not better or worse off with any of these things.
As a christian (a really committed one at that), I think it is a joke we have "in god we trust" on our money. Not because it violates separation (It doesn't) but because it isn't true. America trusts the money, not God.
The problem today is that if a candidate is religious, many on the left want to take away his right to govern. Why are atheists or non-religious believers more capable and more deserving than believers? This is where this whole conversation started. People are opposing Santorum (and Mitt) because of their religious beliefs, not their policies.
gobucksjoe: John I agree. I think the government should not be
A theocracy is established when a state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.
Rick Santorum wanst our government to be run by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.
The United States is not a theocracy.
Looking at the theocracies left in the world it becomes clear that when a country is governed by religion it stagnates, because laws are not allowed to change and the countries are therefore ruled by laws written thousands of years in the past.
And when Rick Santorum talks about the President of the United States being influenced by a “phony theocracy” not base on the Bible, he is saying he feels the United States should be governed by a theocracy based on the Bible: Based on his religion, which he believes to be the one true religion in the world, all others be damned.
The freedom of religion guaranteed in this country means we have the right to practice any religion we choose: Not to be allowed to force the government to adhere to your religious laws.
If we begin running this country by religious laws we will stagnate and cease to be a great country.
If you don’t believe me take a look at those great countries ruled by religious law such as Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, and Oman.
Do we want to be just like them?
If you do, theocracy is the way to go.
I'm a Christian, and I agree 100% that a theocracy is a terrible idea. It has not worked anywhere (including atheistic theocracies like the Soviet Union). In fact I agree with just about everything you said.
However, it is not fair to say that because Santorum has spiritual values and thinks they are important that he wants a theocracy. That is a huge overstatement.
He didn't say Obama had a phony theocracy, but a phony THEOLOGY. He was questioning the president's faith. Now I question it too, based on his actions, but such a statement, in my opinion, has no place in the political arena. That is something 2 people can discuss privately. I'm not afraid to discuss my faith with anyone, but I'm not into calling someone out publicly as a phony Christian.
gobucksjoe: I'm a Christian, and I agree 100% that a theocracy
You've got it so completely wrong I don't know where to start.
Google Theocracy. The definition says it's when priests or religious leaders rule in the name of God. Santorum is not a religious leader. There is nothing wrong with a president having a personal morality based on something bigger than himself, something besides self-interest or lust for power.
Was our government under Washington a Theocracy? He said, "reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle". He was sworn in with his hand upon a Bible, as Presidents are today, and following inauguration he went with a crowd to the Episcopal Church for a 2 hour worship service. John Adams said, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other." We are finding out how right Adams was, because a scoundrel can always find a way around the constitution.
There is a huge difference between expecting government to stay out of church business, which is guaranteed by the first amendment, and government requiring all women to wear a burqa.
Seedpod1: You've got it so completely wrong I don't know where
How did I ever attract someone who thinks Google is the be all and end all of
information? Please, go bother someone else. If you want to vote for Santorum,
go ahead, live by the tenets of the Catholic religion. Have your boss decide
what insurance you can have and what you can't have. I don't care. If you vote
for such a man you get what you deserve. Government will be happy to stay out of
the Catholic church's business if the Catholic church stops taking money from
the government to keep alive its schools and hospitals. I am happy you are
outthere having an opinion. It is better than having none. You have made your
opinion clear ,now go bother someone else. Thank you
jhourihan: How did I ever attract someone who thinks Google is
For those who may be listening to this nonsense for the first time, and asking, am I facing a fight of good versus evil, instead of a political contest. No, it has been done before by the same party.
In 1960, when John F. Kennedy ran, the GOP said, “He is a Catholic. Do you want the Vatican running our country?”
Now the GOP is saying, not to be a Catholic is evil.
When Rick Santorum said the president’s policies were based on a “phony theology,” I believed he knew that some fools listening would say “Oh, that right. He’s a Muslim.”
The next day, Alice Stewart, a Santorum aide called that “false theology” by a new name “radical Islam.”
Then she called back and said she meant to say “radical environmental policies” which we can all see is pretty damn close to “radical Islam.”
In 1960, it was bad to be a Catholic. In 2012, it is good to be a Catholic. The Republicans say so.
Is this about religion, or about which lie will get their guy
elected?
“It isn’t about you. It isn’t about your quality of life. It is about the phony use of theology as a weapon to demonize a human being who doesn’t deserve to be demonized by people who will say one thing and then the exact opposite to get elected.”
Being Catholic can’t be evil and good – can’t be black and white so to speak.
jhourihan: For those who may be listening to this nonsense for
I BELIEVE ;THERE IS A MIDDLE LINE BETWEEN POLITICS AND RELIGION; DEPENDING ON THE SPIRITUAL NATURE OF THE COUNTRY OR MASS CONSIDERING THE ISSUE. THERE ARE SURELY NO GREATER LAWS FOR A CIVILIZED SOCIETY THAN THE TEN COMMANDMENTS... SHOULD WE JUST PUSH THOSE COMMANDMENTS ASIDE.... OF COURSE NOT. THERE HAS TO BE A CLEARER DEFINITION OF THE SEPARATION OF CURCH AND STATE TO RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM.
vdoc493197: I BELIEVE ;THERE IS A MIDDLE LINE BETWEEN POLITICS AND
Thou shall have no other gods before me, etc. Only the commandments requiring civilized behavior are pertinent to the US. The ones that exhalt an imaginary poobah are not.
Peter_Everts: Thou shall have no other gods before me, etc. Only
President Obama's mission is to socialize this country and redistribute wealth until America is no longer America! He has subverted, trampled on and ripped up the Constitution! He ran on transparency yet accomplished his agenda behind closed doors...and AGAINST the will of the American people! He is purposefully bankrupting America, trying to destroy the US from within by pitting rich against poor, black against white, Democrat vs. Republican! He has broken all of his campaign promises to the American people! If he gets his way, America will be a third world country! We will not be able to help our own nation or any others in need, such as Pakistan or Haiti after the earthquakes or Indonesia after the devastating tsunami. Rick Santorum is very conservative and has high moral values, and a plan to really improve our economy and bring America back to the high moral standards on which the country was founded! President Obama goes against everything America stands for...capitalism, free markets, liberty, and tolerance and respect for others! He's making us more dependent on foreign oil, and his foreign policy of apologizing for America is making us the laughing stock of the world! He's making us more vulnerable to attack from terrorists and less capable of defending ourselves as he whittles away our military - even while China and Russia are strengthening and growing theirs! He MUST be defeated, and ANY of the current Republican candidates would be better than Obama! CMEMO3
cetopaz: President Obama's mission is to socialize this country and redistribute
1. GWB already proved that we are not able to help our own nation in a diaster..ask New Orleans
2. The premier economists in the country say Mr Santorum economic plan would add to debt.
3. The country was founded on moral values but not on religion, please see TheTripoli Treaty.
4. Pres Obama is againist tolerance this is a man who been called muslim, a monkey, a liar etc..
5. Pres Obama doesn't respect others..the man has done nothing but turn the other cheek.
6. Statistically you facts on oil are wrong we actually imported less than we have in nearly 20 yrs
7. Laughing stock.. our world standing has actually risen w/ Pres Obama and Mrs Clinton.
8. Cutting the miltary 57 cents of every dollar the fed gov't takes in... is spent on the miltary.
9. Redistributing wealth he is asking for 4% tax increase from the 1% this is fair & equitable.
With regard to the constitution Mr. Obama does not make the laws the legislative branch does and the judicial branch decides whether it is constitutional or not. American was already bankrupt when he took office we were in 7,7 trillion dollars in debt and unless Bush 2 tax cuts are reversed, we put people back to work and cut spending we will continue to have more debt. That statement is not politics it is math. .
NYERFEDUP: Huh I don't even no where to start: 1. GWB
There is a lot of intellectual cowardice here at the worse, or at the least complete ignorance. The president opened up the faith debate here i.e. Quoting the Bible (out of context) when describing Jesus and the poor and taxes and now unbelievably calling for African American churches to form committees for his reelection. If any of the churches do so, they should be ashamed of themselves. The churches are a place to hear the good news about repentance from sin, forgiveness and redemption through Christ Jesus. Not a political venue for politicians. It is shameful for black or white churches to share the podium with those who soil the Gospel for political purposes; God alone can only change the hearts of people and He does it by the Holy Spirit and the word of God, not through political action committees or pressure from folks like Al, Jesse Rick, and now the POTUS. So, stop with all of the blatant hypocrisy. Stop lying about Santorum. I do not necessarily endorse his candidacy, but I will defend him against lies here such as he wants a theocracy in America. All of you ignorant folks that have no inkling of historic Biblical theology do not realize that Jesus' kingdom is not of this world and we are not called to establish it here. Plus it is a spiritual one and is populated by those born from above or born again period… Jesus said so: (John 3:3).
Stephen_Freese: There is a lot of intellectual cowardice here at the
I wish Obama was above using the tactics of the GOP, but he apparently believes he can only win if he plays by the same rule-book (in this case). It's too bad really.
NickTAZ: I wish Obama was above using the tactics of the
Unfortunately, politicians tend to interpret history, including established law, the bible, and church policy in such a way as to support their own point of view. Sometimes they may be right, but too often they are blatantly dishonest or just plain ignorant. Santorum has recently made some of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard in any political campaign. At first he seemed like an honest and religious person, and he must be intelligent to have several college degrees. So, how can he make these obviously false statements? I think it is simply a desperate political move on his part. He feels he is so close to winning the nomination, and he has spent a fortune, and made a huge investment of time and effort. When a person has done that, it is a natural human failing to let high emotion influence his good judgement and distort his usual sense of honesty. Both established law and biblical scriptures can be interpreted differently by different people according to their emotional state and ever changing biases. Years from now Santorum may regret these gross mistakes and intentional lies. For his sake, I hope so. He is a man who has lost control in the face of great stress. He has made a total fool of himself.
Craig_Gosling: Unfortunately, politicians tend to interpret history, including established law, the
Bravo. Imagine a conservative Catholic secular lawyer not know about the last 2000 years of Christian history, not even about the Protestant Reformation that altered the European landscape or the massive missionary movements that began after the great Spanish and Portuguese imperial missionary adventures in the New World. After European Lutherans left Halle, English Baptists were known to bring Protestant Christianity to India (Christianity had been in India since St. Thomas and then was severely reintroduced by Portuguese powers centuries later. If only those lap dog Evangelicals had a grasp of Roman missionary activities and less blind hatred for Obama, they might see that separation of Church and State is a good thing. It protects the bible thumpers as well as the agnostic liberals. Jefferson's letter was meant to assure some Baptists that the new government would not take their liberty away. The Constitution may not use the language of "separation" but it wants to keep Church and State separate. Until recently Catholic countries and Islamic countries assumed the same posture as "Rick" (to his close friends). I doubt many American Catholics would support "Rick" in his thinking. Leave it to uninformed evangelicals to do that. No doubt many Protestants are tired by Supreme Court rulings that don't permit such minor religious practices as bible reading or prayers in school, events I grew up with and didn't seem to hurt me. I can assure my evangelical friends, Santorum won't be sympathetic once he achieves office. Heaven forbid that day comes.
Pole: Bravo. Imagine a conservative Catholic secular lawyer not know about
I care about how a man's faith affects his character. Is he an honest man? Does he care about others?
But really, I have friends who are very faithful Christians who I would never vote for, and I have atheist friends who I would vote for, because I agree with them politically. All things being equal, I'd love to vote for a politician who has a strong, sincere faith. But I am afraid the American political system would probably cause him to compromise so much that his faith might become useless.
While the First Amendment of the Constitution does NOT guarantee separation of church and state, it DOES guarantee freedom of religion.
Jesus himself was the first to suggest separation. when he was asked a political question (should we pay taxes to Caesar) - he gave a completely non-political answer: "Give to Ceasar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
The problem is that the last 40-50 years, the courts have gone past separation to the government, in some cases, opposing religion. That is unconstitutional.
We waste a lot of time on stupid things like words - "one nation under god" and "in god we trust" and the 10 commandments on a courtroom or school wall. These are non-issues. We are not better or worse off with any of these things.
As a christian (a really committed one at that), I think it is a joke we have "in god we trust" on our money. Not because it violates separation (It doesn't) but because it isn't true. America trusts the money, not God.
The problem today is that if a candidate is religious, many on the left want to take away his right to govern. Why are atheists or non-religious believers more capable and more deserving than believers? This is where this whole conversation started. People are opposing Santorum (and Mitt) because of their religious beliefs, not their policies.
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves."
Rick Santorum wanst our government to be run by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.
The United States is not a theocracy.
Looking at the theocracies left in the world it becomes clear that when a country is governed by religion it stagnates, because laws are not allowed to change and the countries are therefore ruled by laws written thousands of years in the past.
And when Rick Santorum talks about the President of the United States being influenced by a “phony theocracy” not base on the Bible, he is saying he feels the United States should be governed by a theocracy based on the Bible: Based on his religion, which he believes to be the one true religion in the world, all others be damned.
The freedom of religion guaranteed in this country means we have the right to practice any religion we choose: Not to be allowed to force the government to adhere to your religious laws.
If we begin running this country by religious laws we will stagnate and cease to be a great country.
If you don’t believe me take a look at those great countries ruled by religious law such as Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, and Oman.
Do we want to be just like them?
If you do, theocracy is the way to go.
www.johnhourihan.wordpess.com
However, it is not fair to say that because Santorum has spiritual values and thinks they are important that he wants a theocracy. That is a huge overstatement.
He didn't say Obama had a phony theocracy, but a phony THEOLOGY. He was questioning the president's faith. Now I question it too, based on his actions, but such a statement, in my opinion, has no place in the political arena. That is something 2 people can discuss privately. I'm not afraid to discuss my faith with anyone, but I'm not into calling someone out publicly as a phony Christian.
Google Theocracy. The definition says it's when priests or religious leaders rule in the name of God. Santorum is not a religious leader. There is nothing wrong with a president having a personal morality based on something bigger than himself, something besides self-interest or lust for power.
Was our government under Washington a Theocracy? He said, "reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle". He was sworn in with his hand upon a Bible, as Presidents are today, and following inauguration he went with a crowd to the Episcopal Church for a 2 hour worship service. John Adams said, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other." We are finding out how right Adams was, because a scoundrel can always find a way around the constitution.
There is a huge difference between expecting government to stay out of church business, which is guaranteed by the first amendment, and government requiring all women to wear a burqa.
information? Please, go bother someone else. If you want to vote for Santorum,
go ahead, live by the tenets of the Catholic religion. Have your boss decide
what insurance you can have and what you can't have. I don't care. If you vote
for such a man you get what you deserve. Government will be happy to stay out of
the Catholic church's business if the Catholic church stops taking money from
the government to keep alive its schools and hospitals. I am happy you are
outthere having an opinion. It is better than having none. You have made your
opinion clear ,now go bother someone else. Thank you
In 1960, when John F. Kennedy ran, the GOP said, “He is a Catholic. Do you want the Vatican running our country?”
Now the GOP is saying, not to be a Catholic is evil.
When Rick Santorum said the president’s policies were based on a “phony theology,” I believed he knew that some fools listening would say “Oh, that right. He’s a Muslim.”
The next day, Alice Stewart, a Santorum aide called that “false theology” by a new name “radical Islam.”
Then she called back and said she meant to say “radical environmental policies” which we can all see is pretty damn close to “radical Islam.”
In 1960, it was bad to be a Catholic. In 2012, it is good to be a Catholic. The Republicans say so.
Is this about religion, or about which lie will get their guy
elected?
“It isn’t about you. It isn’t about your quality of life. It is about the phony use of theology as a weapon to demonize a human being who doesn’t deserve to be demonized by people who will say one thing and then the exact opposite to get elected.”
Being Catholic can’t be evil and good – can’t be black and white so to speak.
What part of NOT BEARING FALSE WITNESS don't you understand
1. GWB already proved that we are not able to help our own nation in a diaster..ask New Orleans
2. The premier economists in the country say Mr Santorum economic plan would add to debt.
3. The country was founded on moral values but not on religion, please see TheTripoli Treaty.
4. Pres Obama is againist tolerance this is a man who been called muslim, a monkey, a liar etc..
5. Pres Obama doesn't respect others..the man has done nothing but turn the other cheek.
6. Statistically you facts on oil are wrong we actually imported less than we have in nearly 20 yrs
7. Laughing stock.. our world standing has actually risen w/ Pres Obama and Mrs Clinton.
8. Cutting the miltary 57 cents of every dollar the fed gov't takes in... is spent on the miltary.
9. Redistributing wealth he is asking for 4% tax increase from the 1% this is fair & equitable.
With regard to the constitution Mr. Obama does not make the laws the legislative branch does and the judicial branch decides whether it is constitutional or not. American was already bankrupt when he took office we were in 7,7 trillion dollars in debt and unless Bush 2 tax cuts are reversed, we put people back to work and cut spending we will continue to have more debt. That statement is not politics it is math. .
oh
he already read and is following those instructions.