Santorum rejects absolute separation of church and state
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
Santorum also reiterated his statement that a 1960 speech by John F. Kennedy, meant to ease concerns about the then-Democratic presidential candidate's Catholic faith, made him want to "throw up."
This man scares the shit out of me.
Did you see the piece Rachel Maddow about the lies he's been spewing about the Dutch healthcare system? The Dutch are horrified that this is a viable candidate for our country.
This man scares the shit out of me.
Nice. I always thought a terrified electorate produced stellar results.
I think we all could breathe a little sigh of relief if Santorum is the republican nominee. I'm rather enjoying the fact that he's bringing out all the nasty women hatred inherent in the republican party. He's showing us all just what "pro-life" means and always has meant.
wrt #5, to focus in on what I think tomcatMurr is referring to (...scares the shit out of me), Google (santorum frothy), with or without the parentheses. That will get you right to the, er, heart of the matter.
It wouldn't be any relief to me. Sure, there'd be more people discovering that the Republican party has gone off the deep end; but don't tell me that with Rick Savonarola as the Republican nominee today's (fat and happy bootlicking) mass media won't bend over backwards to make every one of his most odious positions seem like a reasonable alternative worth considering. He'd lose the general election and damage his party, but poison our entire national polity in the process.
No matter what you say or how you say, it is still the people to decide whos gonna win for the coming election.
#9 - Did anyone state otherwise?
ETA: Ahh, yes... someone who joined LT in order to post in this thread. That will REALLY make us sit up and take note. ;o)
And judging from your 'homepage' I think I smell a whiff of spam in the air.
I thought Santorum's locution "people of non-faith" was an eyebrow-raiser. I believe I might be able identify with that label, but I've met few who would -- certainly not your typical candidates for and holders of elected public offices.
And to indict his fellow Catholic JFK -- the first and so far only Catholic US President -- as a "person of non-faith," well, I can't see how that's a winner, really.
>9 Yeah, this (Happy Heathens) is the "fun" side of the argument. If you really want to turn up on day one, with no books catalogued, and start making "provincial" political statements, well, not to put too fine a point on it, you can fuck right off.
I remember when this was a fun group. No, "you disagree with me, so fuck off," more, "you disagree with me? Then back it up!"
I think the "fuck off" had less to do with JemElle's opinions than it did with the fact that s/he appears to be a drive-by spammer (who has now been "suspended for unusual activity").
Yeah, JemElle didn't even clearly state a relevant opinion, despite a little undertone of combativeness.
Santorum wouldn't still be in the race if Romney wasn't the front-runner. The Fundies are freaking out at the possibility of a Mormon making it to the White House, and they'd rather lose to Obama than to allow some competitive Snake Oil get "legitimized" by the Presidency. Although Santorum is nominally a Catholic, he spews the classic Evangelical lunacy, and the Fundies pump money into his campaign.
When Romney started "getting traction" before the primaries started, I thought it was going to be a lot of fun watching the Evangelicals' heads explode ... but I never expected that they'd sabotage the chances of ousting Obama by running a clearly unelectable yahoo like Santorum. I guess "doctrinal purity" means more to the Fundies than anything else.
I hope things play out the way Wayne Allyn Root has been predicting ... that Romney takes the next few big states, locks things up, and brings Ron Paul in as VP, so picks up the "visionary" end of the GOP. It would be fun to watch long-time congressional "Dr. No" riding shot-gun on the Senate as VP!
I am currently (and rather slowly) reading The Book of Books: The Radical Impact of the King James Bible, 1611 - 2011 by Melvyn Bragg.
I am finding it interesting and rather scary. The chapter which i am reading at the moment is headed "The Mayflower and the Covenant". It documents the way in which Christianity developed in America and how the early settlers used the bible to justify all manner of rules, laws and punishments.
The chapter which i am reading at the moment is headed "The Mayflower and the Covenant". It documents the way in which Christianity developed in America and how the early settlers used the bible to justify all manner of rules, laws and punishments.
Sounds like religion to me.
11> The reason I find Santorum so delightful, Paradoxosalpha, is just the opposite of yours. I think the more he talks about his desire for a theocracy, the more the media sees that idea in the right light. For years we've had to put up with some reactionary group calling itself "Pro-Life". I think most of us are pro-life. We love babies and we want them to be healthy; by letting this group of murdering intimidators label themselves as such, we give them a break. Santorum is showing that he, and they, are not pro life, they're anti choice, anti women and anti personal freedom. I think the lovely man is doing a good job of letting the rest of the country know that.
Apparently Santorum is reaching out to Democrats in Michigan. And it looks like the idiots at the DailyKos are chipping in as well. Santorum's pitch is basically "Romney supported banker welfare but opposed auto welfare!" I wouldn't put it past a few welfare-addled Michiganders falling for it.
I am from Australia and we have a female, atheist, "living in sin" Prime Minister at the moment and as far as I can see, no-one gives a tinker's curse about it.
Our political scene is interesting - but different.
"Australia(n) ... political scene . . .interesting--but different" (20)
Living in Tonga from 1981 through 1986, I was hearing for the first time any substantial quantity of Australian news.
I knew right away that Australia is different when Bob Hawke became prime minister in 1982. --The equivalent of John L. Lewis, Walter Reuther, Lane Kirkland or Ed Sadowski becoming president of the U. S. A Trade Unionist, or, as we would call it, a Labor Unionist in high elective politics is unthinkable here! Even belongs to a party that calls itself "Labor"! (Whereas the Liberal Party of Australia is the equivalent of the Canadian "Progressive"(?) Conservatives, the British Conservatives, or the U. S. Republican, while American politicians bend over backwards to prove how UN"liberal" they are.)
#16 "I guess "doctrinal purity" means more to the Fundies than anything else."
Isn't that the definition of fundamentalism?
21> I prefer to see the US as 'different'. It's not uncommon in other parts of the world for trade unionists to be elected head of government. Not many countries' governments are so dominated by sanctimonious god botherers and the term 'liberal' is not much of an insult in most countries.
Democrats are actually urging other Democrats to vote for Santorum. Not, of course because they support him, but to weaken Romney.
Personally I find this dangerous. While Santorum's actual chances of winning the nomination, much less the presidency are about as potent as a fart in a hurricane, stranger things have happened. I could live with Romney. Not so Santorum.
Santorum reminds me of an exchange in M*A*S*H between Frank and Hawkeye.
Frank: He insulted my character.
Hawkeye: That's true. I let him talk.
Re. #24: "I could live with Romney."
That's pretty much where I come down on him as well ... he's WAY too much of a R.I.N.O. for my tastes, but (blanket statements about Mormons aside) he's not a religious "whackjob", has experience in managing large enterprises (unlike a certain resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.), and seems to be the sort that would be likable to the "Clinton Soccer Moms", so has a good chance to get elected.
While Santorum's actual chances of winning the nomination, much less the presidency are about as potent as a fart in a hurricane, stranger things have happened.
At least one recent poll shows both Santorum and Romney beating Obama in certain swing states: http://www.npr.org/2012/02/28/147561573/weekly-standard-polls-split-on-gop-again...
". . .urging other Democrats to vote for Santorum. . .to weaken Romney." (24)
I wouldn't be surprised if they are. Hasn't it been tried before? -- By some Republicans
in the 2008 Democratic primaries: to vote for Hilary Clinton, not that they wanted her as president. And the whole ploy was without any (from trheir point of view) success.
And didn't Rush Limbaugh (approvingly!) call the ploy fomenting "chaos"? John McCain was meanwhile predicting that Obama would be the nominee. (Whether that was an astute
prediction, or just wishful thinking you are free to guess for yourself.)
It's quite a huge question in Political Science, this question of "Whom does a Party want the opposition to nominate: the one that you deem the lesser of two evils and that you could, if necessary, "live with"? Or the weakest, the one most likely to lose?
Harry Truman once, when asked that question, said "I don't give a damn who they nominate!"
But can a politician really be that indifferent to the question of who'll be the oppopnent?
> 18 the more the media sees that idea in the right light
I said (in #8) not to tell me that, because I don't believe it. The mass media are constitutionally incapable of serving any interest other than profit, and what gets eyeballs (they suppose) is a contest. The official challenger must be made credible at all costs, even if he is a clueless reactionary like Santorum.
Obama's been spending money bashing Romney before Republican primary contests so it seems that he'd rather run against Santorum.
I think the media has done a pretty good job showing Santorum to be freedom quenching zealot he is and would continue to do so duing the general campaign, but we'll never get to know.
#28: The mass media are constitutionally incapable of serving any interest other than profit, and what gets eyeballs (they suppose) is a contest.
What we should be doing is not complaining about "profit" in general but considering why certain things about how the media covers politics is profitable.
For example, a complaint I sometimes hear about how the media covers politics is that they cover elections like a "horse race," always citing some new poll rather than discussing pertinent issues. But the reality is that democracy is in fact a horse race. It's "Dancing with the Stars" with a suitcase of nuclear launch codes as the grand prize. What else can you possibly expect?
Voting audiences don't want to be told they're "wrong." When the king gets told he can't do something by the local press, he's liable to do something more than just change the channel. Why would voters be any different? It's in the nature of power to become corrupt and intransigent.
It's in the nature of power to become corrupt and intransigent.
Which is exactly why we need checks on power that transcend a general notion of "all people will seek their best interest which will take care of the problem."
#32: Checks on power? Seriously?
Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook
or press down his tongue with a cord?
Can you put a rope in his nose
or pierce his jaw with a hook?
Will he make many pleas to you?
Will he speak to you soft words?
Will he make a covenant with you
to take him for your servant forever?
Hmmmmm. Stalinist Russia, anytime. America, November 2000.
I will take the system that promises checks.
And quoting the Bible back at me? Really?
If Santorum wins, I'm moving to Australia.
The thing that scares me most is that I don't have faith in the Republican voting pool to realize Santorum is crazy. I think an extremely large percentage is just as anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-progress as he is. They have this vision of the 50's as a golden age and instead of the economic policies (more business regulations, higher tax rate on the wealthy) they are trying to regain it by stomping down women and people of color, and non-heterosexual-cis-gendered people. Also, they live in the bubble where no sane words are allowed through.
They think they're the sane ones, though.
I think we've screwed ourselves with the national ideology/rhetoric of freedom/liberty. Because, if America does it, it must be in the service of freedom and liberty. (Just like whatever the president does is legal, now.) We've set our own doublespeak trap.
I predict if Santorum wins the physical continent of Australia will move here.
#34: And quoting the Bible back at me? Really?
It was either that or a quote from Tolkien where Elrond is schooling Boromir on the folly of trying to use the One Ring for "good" instead of just throwing it into the pits of Mount Doom. The Bible quote was more easily copy-pasteable. And there's a difference between "promising" checks and actually delivering them.
A) Utopia does not exist.
B) Politics will be a part of any organization that has more than two people involved. Sometimes all it takes is two.
C) Power is the currency of politics.
D) Given A and B, any and every political system is bound to have faults.
E) there are certain societal aspects that take precedence over others. Order, for instance, is preferable to chaos. A system based on rights is preferable to a system based on naked power grabs.
F) Given D and E, the question is which system has fewer faults and offers more advantages.
G) Any potential system that starts with the word "Assume..." is DOA.
It also depends on whether one views democracy (playing fair, generally speaking) as a fault or an advantage.
Or whether chaos plays more to your advantage than order does.
I must admit I am quite smitten with Rawls notion of evaluating a system based on the possibility that you might the at the lowest rung, rather than the highest.
With that, I should add that much the Tea Party rhetoric comes from people who assume they have a shot at the top, because they spend a hell of a lot of time defending them.
Republicans are blaming Obama for setting a trap into which they gladly rushed.
It most certainly does exist. I have a copy on my bookshelf right now.
". . .just a reasonable facsimile?" (45)
No need to ask, because:
Even though all copies" are not "reasonable facsimiles", all "reasonable facsimiles" are copies.
It's not a fax at all, reasonable or otherwise. It's a normal press-printed softcover. And now that I've looked at it again, I see that nowhere does it claim to be a copy. So I must have the real thing. Just like Coke, at least during Passover, or all the time at the Latino supermarket across the street. I don't actually have any Coke because I refuse to pay more than $1 for sugar water. But I do have Utopia, *plus* independent confirmation of its reality: I just smacked it against the table really hard and the sound made my cat jump. Well, OK, there's a strong correlation between the sound made by smacking it really hard against the table and my cat jumping, but correlation isn't causation, so maybe there's still room to doubt Utopia's reality after all. And all that smacking has cracked the spine a little bit. Utopia's, not the cat's. As far as I know. So, real or not, Utopia's clearly imperfect. Great. Now I get to die the girl who ruined Utopia. Is that better or worse than what Pandora did? We went to college together. She played ice hockey and then became a vet so you can tell she was atoning for something. I don't feel like atoning for anything so ruining Utopia must not be as bad. Anyway I got it used, so it's not like I ruined a shiny new Utopia. That's got to count for something. Although even if it was new it's not a huge crack; it would still be a 'like new' Utopia, which is way better than a lot of alternatives. I'd list them but the Simpsons is about to come on.
In 46 I was using "copy" not in the strict sense of an exact reproduction, but, bookishly colloquially, in the sense of
any edition that more or less presents the original work. No disparagement of your edition intended.
Are you sure it wasn't The Lord jumping that caused you to damage Utopia?
Nor did I take it that way. I was just messing with different meanings of facsimile, copy, and Utopia.
I'm not at all sure that's not the case. It's already well-established that The Lord is an @$$hole; directly or indirectly causing damage or loss to personal possessions is extremely small beer to Him. In a way, this particular instance is a further demonstration of the holy @$$holery: He creates Utopia, sets up Adam & Eve so they can hardly help getting kicked out, and when humanity creates its own Utopia, He makes sure we break it. Great. Now it's not just Pandora I can compare myself to, it's Eve as well. Which isn't entirely inappropriate. I'm greatly overeducated for my station in life. That didn't get me kicked out of anywhere, though, so much as just make it all seem like Hell. Nor did it involve eating magic fruit. Maybe that's my problem. I'll go to the supermarket and taste their fruit, see if any of it's magic. I bet I would at least get kicked out of the supermarket. Or maybe I'll be lucky and bite a poison fruit, and pass out for a couple of centuries while society passes peak oil and devolves into neo-mediævalism, and then Prince Charming will come along to revive me. Assuming the supermarket people don't just toss me in the dumpster. Which I wouldn't put past them. I told you The Lord is an @$$hole.
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.