If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   The separation of church and state - one of the core tenets of American democracy - makes Rick Santorum "want to throw up"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 206
    More: Sick, American Democracy, Rick Santorum  
•       •       •

16555 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Feb 2012 at 8:27 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-02-26 08:40:01 PM
18 votes:
Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."



Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson

I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.
Thomas Jefferson
Letter to Elbridge Gerry (1799)

and last but by no means least:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
Thomas Jefferson
Letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT. (1 January 1802) This statement is the origin of the often used phrase "separation of Church and State".


Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers himself, coined the phrase 'separation of church and state'. it is demonstrably, quotably, VERIFIABLY the vision of the Founding Fathers that there SHOULD be a wall between religion and government. This cannot be any more clear - Jefferson himself wrote on this subject extensively, and his latters are extremely well documented and commented upon. Santorum is either a profoundly stupid man, or he's an exceptionally poor liar.
2012-02-26 07:36:23 PM
14 votes:
"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute," he told 'This Week' host George Stephanopoulos. "The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country...to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up."



the church can form a lobbying group and propose legislation just like any other organization or special interest in D.C. of course, they'll lose their tax exempt status and be just one more voice among the many already in D.C. but that's how it goes in the big city.

People of faith do have a role, and they can (and often do) vote according to their beliefs. But no religious organization can have any more say or any more rights than any OTHER religious group, and that's the key point you seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp. Christianity is merely ONE voice in the chorus. Muslims, Jews, Pagans and even scientologists and UFO cultists and fringe groups also get a seat at that table.
2012-02-26 05:28:29 PM
14 votes:
i'm guessing he probably feels the same way about free speech and a few other american rights. after all, like the other members of the taliban, he "hates us for our freedoms."
2012-02-26 07:35:11 PM
12 votes:
A country that puts forth an obvious sicko like this guy as a viable presidential candidate is what makes me want to throw up.
2012-02-26 08:43:33 PM
11 votes:

jayhawk88: .you don't have the moral fiber to do so, you're too reliant on the crutch of religion to tell you what is right and wrong. Too scared to face choices or decisions yourself.

Go away.


Please. If Rick Santorum relied on his religion to tell him what was right and wrong he would oppose the death penalty, as his religion instructs him to do. He'd be in favor of path to citizenship, as the leaders of his church also demand. He would have opposed invading Iraq, as his Pope did. He would recognize torture as an intrinsic evil. Etc.

Santorum is a faithful Catholic where Catholicism agrees with his pre-existing political opinions. There is no evidence of Catholic thought ever changing his mind about anything, nor is there any evidence of Santorum ever saying, "Well, emotionally or intellectually I would left to my own devices do A, but due to the teaching of my church I will instead do B."

Santorum is a Catholic when being one gets him votes or provides him a convenient excuse for his politics. The rest of the time he's what Rick Santorum has been since birth: a thug.
2012-02-26 08:43:17 PM
11 votes:
I always wonder why these super religious people seem to think that their religion is so weak that they must use the government to coerce the American people into following its tenets. Can't you just be happy trying to convince people to follow your religious beliefs of their own free will rather than trying to use the American government to impose those beliefs on people? Don't you think if your omnipotent god exists that he would see through into the true hearts and minds of people to see they were only following your rules as you imposed those rules on people rather than them actually believing and feeling them to be true?

Can your religion not stand up on its own? Do you really need my government to impose it on people?
2012-02-26 08:33:24 PM
11 votes:
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
2012-02-26 07:44:59 PM
10 votes:

Backwards Cornfield Races: Okay seriously, who paid this guy to say all this stuff. No one is literally this crazy, he must being getting paid by the obama camp to help their campaign


Seriously, I sometimes can't help but think that the whole thing is just a giant troll to see how much Americans are willing to listen to and put up with before they all declare with one voice, "No way in hell would we allow such a person anywhere near a public office". I can't help but think it's a troll and they had no idea it would actually ever come this far.

Because the alternative, that there actually are a significant number of people in the United States who think frothy would make a good president, is completely f*cking INSANE.
2012-02-26 09:13:22 PM
9 votes:
We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate.

--Ronald Reagan
2012-02-26 07:55:04 PM
9 votes:

weave: "This is the First Amendment. The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion. That means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square."


I'd normally be inclined to agree with this but I know damn well he doesn't want any of those wrong-faith-Muslim people in that square.


by absolutely astonishing coincidence, a whole group of people who have been lobbying wildly for tax-funded religious schools all of a sudden "got religion", when it turns out one of the most successful charter school operators has an arabic-sounding name.

Backwards Cornfield Races: Okay seriously, who paid this guy to say all this stuff. No one is literally this crazy, he must being getting paid by the obama camp to help their campaign


I really really really really really wish him and his ilk could be written off as a plant, but seriously, this is the core of the Republican party, and if Santorum gets nominated, 43% of the vote will go to him.

I guess I should be pleased that Obama will get a landslide in '12 that will make '08 look like a squeaker, but it's not really making me jump for joy. The 43% will be even more bitter, even more isolated, and often will end up screwed because they have to vote (R) - because to do otherwise will have been defined as an act of social deviance.

There have been places where the Democrats have had a "lock" on an office, for better or worse (usually a toss-up), but hell, when Democrats go Batshiat Crazy, it means some bubba gets paid $70k a year to water plants. Wasteful, maybe, but not actually evil - bubba pays his mortgage and buys a used camry every few years. When the GOP goes on a bender, state-mandated vaginal penetration and vomit seem to be the order of the day.
2012-02-26 05:36:18 PM
9 votes:
Conservatives hate when anybody attacks the Constitution. Except when they do it.
2012-02-26 08:51:33 PM
8 votes:
As a conservative, I look at the GOP and I'm sick to my farking stomach.

Romney? The "fark you, I'm rich" guy? And he doesn't even try to hide it!

Santorum? What year is this, asshole? It sure as hell isn't 1950. Dude's just openly trolling about women, gays, and religion.

Gingrich? Motherfarker wouldn't know the definition of ethics if someone gave him a dictionary.

Paul? Batshiat crazy.

Really? This is the best and brightest we can come up with? Obama's laughing his ass off.
NFA [TotalFark]
2012-02-26 08:48:08 PM
8 votes:
dakiniland.files.wordpress.com
2012-02-26 08:56:24 PM
7 votes:
Those of you saying Santorum must be "trolling" because he "can't possibly be this crazy" need to get out more. Anger at the separation of church and state is bedrock conservatism. Conservatives quite often and earnestly make statements like "there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution." On a technical level they're right: the words "separation of church and state" do not in fact appear in the Constitution.

The words "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" are in the Constitution. But read the first clause closely, and listen carefully whenever a conservative quotes it. They almost always misquote it. They like to eliminate the word "respecting the," change the word "establishment" to "establishing," and replacing the "of" with "a," or "any particular."

To compare:

The real Constitutional language:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,"

The false Constitutional language conservatives try to sell us:

"Congress shall make no law establishing a religion."

The difference in meaning is vast. That word "respecting" means "relating to." That phrase "establishment of religion" is much broader than "establishing a." With their edits, conservatives change a broad prohibition on any Congressional action that so much as relates to religion into a narrow bar against establishing any particular state religion.

Joe Sixpack doesn't know the difference. Usually, when a lay conservative misquotes the Establishment Clause, he does so unintentionally. He's just parroting the dishonest radio hosts, preachers, and Republicans he's heard misquote it. But do not doubt that those dishonest radio hosts, preachers, and Republicans know the real Constitutional language, and intentionally misquote it. Their goal is to tear down the wall of separation the Establishment Clause builds, and build a theocracy upon its ruins.

Rick Santorum is not crazy. He is conservative. The only difference between Santorum and other conservatives is that Santorum has decided that it suits his purposes to let a little of the crazy go public just at the moment.
2012-02-26 08:46:48 PM
7 votes:
Churches are political entities. Their goal is to have you under THEIR governance, as THEY see fit. That is why we have a separation of church and state. Churches are free to exist and do as they will, to bring people under their influence. They just aren't free to merge with government and FORCE people to do as they say.

There are numerous examples of why this is a good thing. I dare say, if you don't agree with this then you are an enemy of myself and everything that America stands for.
2012-02-26 08:44:15 PM
7 votes:
www.fishink.us
2012-02-26 08:34:48 PM
7 votes:

xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.


You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that Christianity is a Pagan religion based on Pagan principles.
2012-02-26 07:24:19 PM
7 votes:
Okay seriously, who paid this guy to say all this stuff. No one is literally this crazy, he must being getting paid by the obama camp to help their campaign
2012-02-26 06:13:10 PM
7 votes:
Guess he doesn't know much about the history of the American Revolution.

The Founding Fathers didn't come up with that concept just to piss off future politicians intent on theocracy, they intended to prevent theocracy altogether.
2012-02-27 08:19:56 AM
6 votes:
The sad thing is, the separation of church and state is to protect religion.

All of them. Not just the popular ones--because popularity waxes and wanes with time. The churches that were popular back when our nation was founded, they've changed a great deal since those days. With no state backing, that protects all the faiths and ministries--because when the state backs one faith, that means that a few ministries are going to have a bit more pull. That puts all churches on a tilted playing field, and that isn't what freedom of religion is about. It's about all faiths being on that level playing field. Everyone has the right to worship as they will, without interference, without skewing the field.

The problem here is that some ministries are hoping that they'll get some state backing. Why? Because they're betting that once they get that, they can use that to eliminate the competition. Rick is betting that the Protestants will be brought to heel, the Crazy Baptists are betting that the dirty Papists will see Jesus' Love once and for all and end their idol worship, the Mormons figure that they can just buy and sneak their way into everyone's hearts, and cemeteries.

We allow sneaking across the line to state backing of one faith, that puts us on a line to the sort of violence and the sort of problems that rocked Ireland for how many years? Have consumed the conflicts in the Middle East as Shia and Suuni have clashed for how long? We have lovely examples of what happens when a few particular sects get a hold of the government: every other faith then suffers.

Which is why we have that wall separating church and state. Not because folks hate religion. But because faith is too important to much up by arbitrary backing of one or two ministries now, at the cost of the rest of the nation.

You mouth breathing f*cking dolts.
2012-02-26 08:52:08 PM
6 votes:
The invasion of religion into the state is easily one of the gravest threats this country has to face. Forget what morals, beliefs, or ethics organized religion might occasionally provide, it has no place in deciding laws and how the country should be run.

The Founders knew this better than anyone, having just come out of a period where radical religious beliefs had led the world down a path of violence and blissful ignorance, helping to destroy countless civilizations and end the lives of millions. Religion is dangerous to the state because it accepts no competing views: Christianity and Islam are some of the most prominent examples of this.

I can only hope that there is enough sanity left in this country to keep someone like Santorum from moving up the totem pole. He's already dangerous enough in the position he currently holds---and it's already horrifying enough that he can spew this sort of nonsense and actually GAIN support by doing so.
2012-02-26 08:37:23 PM
6 votes:
God damnit Republicans? Why are you so god damn retarded?

You "moderate" republican sheep can kiss my ass. You sat around with your collective thumbs up your asses for a generation while the biblethumpers took over the GOP and you didn't say a farking peep. Enjoy the ramifications.
2012-02-26 09:58:38 PM
5 votes:

Talondel: There's plenty of moronic things to attack Santorum for. This isn't one of them. The fact that so many Farkers are ready to jump on him for such a relatively mild statement does more to show their ignorance of history and the Constitution that it does Santorum's.


Now this I agree with. As far as I can tell, Santorum isn't explicitly calling for a theocracy here. But it doesn't change the fact that the Palin-Americans of this country relish the idea of religion playing a guiding role in how government regulates the population. This might not be the perfect quote to demonstrate it, especially as taken from full context as I've seen it presented in headline form about 5,482 times today, but I'm very confident that if Santorum and his ilk had their way we plebes would be staring down the barrel of a far more sinister America.

Take a look at these people. What I genuinely don't get is how neocons freely lob baseless charges that Dems hate America, liberty, or whatever words sound pretty when barked next to a flag - when they are clearly the party who most wants to trample on your basic rights. And they still have the unmitigated gall to name nearly all of their organizations with some variation of Libertytm, Freedomtm, or Familytm in the title in either a deliberate attempt at obfuscating what they actually stand for or a genuine belief in what they imagine our nation's founding principles to be. It's farking disturbing to watch frontrunner candidates and highly-visible talking heads openly advocating Freedom For Me; None For Thee. And then swinging a flagpole at the audience with the clear implication that only they believe in America, and that the rest of us are just looking for a drum circle that provides free abortions and heroin.

I do not like the tone of this country right now. In fact, I'm genuinely afraid of it. There are too many unnerving parallels to points in world history to just sit back and hope the Jingo Jesus craze fades like parachute pants and Crystal Pepsi. Yes, it's always been here but with 24/7 media propaganda now in the mix it's far more dangerous.
2012-02-26 08:34:57 PM
5 votes:
The founders of America were fleeing state-sponsored religious persecution and wanted a nation where all religions were allowed.

Separation of church and state is WHY people in this country have freedom of religion.
2012-02-26 08:32:26 PM
5 votes:
...to say that people of faith have no role in the public square?

What a prick.

People of faith absolutely can have a role in the "public square". Far, far greater men than you did just that when they created this country. But they had the intelligence/courage to put their faith aside when making decisions for the state, which is all we would expect of you. But no, you don't have the moral fiber to do so, you're too reliant on the crutch of religion to tell you what is right and wrong. Too scared to face choices or decisions yourself.

Go away.
2012-02-26 07:56:36 PM
5 votes:

Mugato: I don't know who's advising this guy but he needs to know that the batshiat crazy shiat he spews isn't going to gain him any support. It only appeals to the lunatic fringe who will vote for him anyway, no matter what.


Just keep handing him more cans of paint.

www.moonofalabama.org
2012-02-26 07:51:31 PM
5 votes:
Rick, if the Separation were to be ended, your Church would probably not be the one controlling the government.

/just sayin'
2012-02-26 10:36:29 PM
4 votes:
Um...Rick, perhaps this might be a moment to slip this in here...

lh6.googleusercontent.com
2012-02-26 09:06:26 PM
4 votes:

xl5150: Gawdzila: xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.

[Citation needed]


Citation? Sure, look around. It's called REALITY. I don't see them making Eid-al-Adha a national holiday. CHRISTmas, on the other hand....


x-mas is nothing more than pagan idolatry. You do know that more children recognize santa than jesus, right? If you still believe that Christmas is viewed by the majority of Americans as a religious holiday, and not a pain in the ass money vacuum, then you may be the login of Rick Santorum.
2012-02-26 08:43:40 PM
4 votes:
JRoo: The founders of America were fleeing state-sponsored religious persecution and wanted a nation where all religions were allowed.

Separation of church and state is WHY people in this country have freedom of religion.


People like Rick Santorum are incapable of seeing the reason for this from this point of view. Their entire world view is based on the idea that if someone does not follow their religious beliefs to the exact letter, then they are evil. If you do not allow them to do what-ever they like in the name of their God, you're persecuting them. If you do not allow their religious laws and beliefs to Govern, then you are defeating the view of the founding fathers, and not a true American. Things are completely black and white to these kind of people - there are no situational exceptions to their rules, and there is absolutely no grey area.

These kinds of people never evolved past Kohlberg's First Stage of Moral Development, that is - they think that without the idea of an invisible sky-man holding the Sword of Damocles over their head for the smallest infraction, that society and the social contract which we built America upon would simply fall apart. They truely view anyone who believes differently than them - Atheists, Jews, Muslims - as enemies hellbent on destroying America.
2012-02-26 08:43:16 PM
4 votes:
Why is it that "conservatives" can't stand it if every last person isn't just like them?

And if everyone magically conformed to their current mental image of what a Real American™ is it would only be a matter of time before they found some other traits or qualities in those people they found objectionable.

They're like Taliban wannabees.

/Talibanabees???
2012-02-26 08:35:41 PM
4 votes:
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.
2012-02-26 08:11:10 PM
4 votes:
The fifteen most dangerous words in the English language: "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."
2012-02-26 07:47:49 PM
4 votes:
I don't know who's advising this guy but he needs to know that the batshiat crazy shiat he spews isn't going to gain him any support. It only appeals to the lunatic fringe who will vote for him anyway, no matter what.
2012-02-26 07:34:22 PM
4 votes:
I would go with a more simple angle of 'Rick Santorum hates the Founding Fathers and the Constitution' but whatever.
2012-02-27 01:42:31 PM
3 votes:
That's because Rick is a theocrat, an idiot who didn't even understand what JFK was saying, and a serial liar.
2012-02-27 09:55:15 AM
3 votes:
"The next time believers tell you that 'separation of church and state' does not appear in our founding document, tell them to stop using the word 'trinity.' The word 'trinity' appears nowhere in the bible. Neither does Rapture, or Second Coming, or Original Sin. If they are still unfazed (or unphrased), by this, then add Omniscience, Omnipresence, Supernatural,Transcendence, Afterlife, Deity, Divinity, Theology, Monotheism, Missionary, Immaculate Conception, Christmas, Christianity, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Methodist, Catholic, Pope, Cardinal, Catechism, Purgatory, Penance, Transubstantiation, Excommunication, Dogma, Chastity, Unpardonable Sin, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Incarnation, Epiphany, Sermon, Eucharist, the Lord's Prayer, Good Friday, Doubting Thomas, Advent, Sunday School, Dead Sea, Golden Rule, Moral, Morality, Ethics, Patriotism, Education, Atheism, Apostasy, Conservative (Liberal is in), Capital Punishment, Monogamy, Abortion, Pornography, Homosexual, Lesbian, Fairness, Logic, Republic, Democracy, Capitalism, Funeral, Decalogue, or Bible."

--- Dan Barker
2012-02-26 10:30:56 PM
3 votes:
I don't know if there's a single Santorum supporter in this thread that isn't just trolling for lulz, but incase there is, let me make one simple point;

Remember how concerned you were about Sharia Law taking over the United States and being forced on you? The exact same rules that prevent that from happening are the rules that Santorum is arguing against here.

Deal with it.
2012-02-26 09:45:28 PM
3 votes:
Santorum would start a mindless war with Iran to remove their Theocratic regime while trying to create a theocracy here.
2012-02-26 09:38:18 PM
3 votes:

Mugato: I don't know who's advising this guy but he needs to know that the batshiat crazy shiat he spews isn't going to gain him any support. It only appeals to the lunatic fringe who will vote for him anyway, no matter what.


But you forget that this lunatic fringe feels it's a silent majority.

How else do you explain the logic when they say that "Obama won in 2008 because McCain was too liberal for voters (Because conservatives would rater vote for a guy who is to the left of Stalin in their eyes than a moderate), which is why we should run a "true conservative" who is much further to the right to win over the voters who voted for the guy we think was to the left of Stalin."

If any of you guys are able to decipher the logic behind that, let me know. Because I'm stumped.
2012-02-26 09:30:17 PM
3 votes:

Bevets: Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

The 'Wall of Separation' is sacred to Secular Fundamentalists and invisible in the constitution.


You and your ilk want a Christian theocracy.

We won't let you have it.
2012-02-26 09:23:35 PM
3 votes:
I'm reminded of this bit from a recent Daily Show (new window)

JON STEWART: Wow. Now, what is it about Santorum that has Republicans so alarmed?

JOHN OLIVER: Because, Jon, as you saw in the debates, he's a little too open and honest about his thoughts and feelings.

JON STEWART: But they are conservative thoughts and conservative feelings. Why is that a problem?

JOHN OLIVER: Because Republicans aren't idiots, Jon. They know that America likes its conservatism cut with plenty of baking powder. Because one hit of the pure stuff, and you'll wake up with Eric Stoltz straddling you, having just plunged an adrenaline needle into your heart. And Santorum doesn't get that, Jon. ... It's just like the contraception debate, which Santorum was stupid enough to make about contraception.

RICK SANTORUM (10/17/2011): Many in the Christian faith have said, "Well, that's OK. I mean, you know, contraception's OK." It's not OK. It's a license to do things in the sexual realm, that is counter to what... how things are supposed to be.

JOHN OLIVER: Is this your first day in politics, Rick? You just made this about controlling a woman's access to health care based on imposing your code of morality upon others.

JON STEWART: But that is what's it's about. That is what they're doing.

JOHN OLIVER: Right, but you don't tell them that! Jon, this is what you tell them.

REP. PAUL RYAN, R-WI (2/19/2012): It's really not about contraception, it's about violating our First Amendment rights to religious freedom, and of conscience.

JOHN OLIVER: I'm a religious man. I have no interest in your lady parts. I just wish to pray in peace.

JON STEWART: So it's like the states rights arguments during the early '60s. It was really about segregation, but you need some sort of agreed-upon code.

....

JON STEWART: So he's not afraid to state explicitly Republican dogma. It's kind of refreshing. This is what we should be doing in debates, put ideas out there in the marketplace in their bare form, and let the voters decide. It's free market.

JOHN OLIVER: No, no, no. We should not be doing that Jon, and I'll show you why. Because then, voters have to take your platform to its logical conclusion.
2012-02-26 09:19:57 PM
3 votes:

xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.


I know you're trolling, but for the record:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,-and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11

Submitted for ratification by President John Adams and Vice President Thomas Jefferson after signing and ratified unanimously by the United States Senate on June 7, 1797.

I would say that a treaty ratified unanimously by a Senate full of Founding Fathers, with the full support of an administration who was filled with Founding Fathers (much of the Senate were combat vets from the Revolution, if they weren't politicians during the war, they were fighting it), with not a single dissenting vote in the Senate or any historic record of any letters of protest or public outcry against this treaty explicitly saying the United States is not a Christian state is extremely strong evidence that the founders of this nation never intended for this county to be Christian, it is intended to be secular.
2012-02-26 09:04:48 PM
3 votes:

JeffMD: why? why do the republicans make this so easy?


Do you know why this post scares me? Because I grew up a Red Sox fan. In fact, a fan of Boston/New England sports in general. I grew up knowing what it was like to believe that my team was on such an unstoppable roll that the season was in the bag, only to have them choke and blow it in humiliating fashion in the playoffs.

Sure, it's the Democrats' game to lose. But that isn't saying that they won't crash and burn in the home stretch.

The worst thing that anyone could do is assume that reelection is a given.
2012-02-26 08:56:22 PM
3 votes:

xl5150: Weaver95: you are either very poorly educated or deliberately lying.

I'd say the truly poorly educated are those who base the belief of their entire existence upon a THEORY.


Jefferson himself made it very clear that the country was NOT founded on 'Christian principals' and was to be a secular nation. Religion was to be seperate from government.

Again, this is all very well documented and extensively commented upon. the concept of 'america is a christian nation' is deliberately and willfully wrong, and mildly toxic to the political processes of this nation.
2012-02-26 08:54:45 PM
3 votes:

lymond01: The bible may have the basic tenets of our laws but it is not our law.


It does? Like what? Thou shalt not kill? Thou shalt not steal?
Those are universal enough rules (i.e. virtually every society, even non-Christian, has them) that it doesn't make any case at all for calling our laws "Christian".

Otherwise, we have no laws about purely religious things. We don't have to keep the sabbath. We don't even have to obey most of the commandments, the supposedly most important and fundamental rules of Christian and Jewish faith. Coveting thy neighbors junk is not only legal it is routine. Adultery is frowned upon, but decidedly legal. Idolatry isn't illegal either.

So the question remains... in what sense, exactly, are our laws based on the Bible?
2012-02-26 08:54:20 PM
3 votes:
"When religion and politics travel in the same cart, the riders believe nothing can stand in their way. Their movements become headlong - faster and faster and faster. They put aside all thoughts of obstacles and forget the precipice does not show itself to the man in a blind rush until it's to late."
― Frank Herbert, Dune
2012-02-26 08:51:54 PM
3 votes:

xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.


you are either very poorly educated or deliberately lying.
2012-02-26 08:46:17 PM
3 votes:
One of Heinlein's first stories was "If This Goes On-", first serialized in 1940, and rewritten for his 1953 book Revolt in 2100.

The story is set in a future theocratic American society, ruled by the latest in a series of "Prophets." The First Prophet was Nehemiah Scudder, a backwoods preacher turned President (elected in 2012).

Just saying.
2012-02-26 08:42:13 PM
3 votes:

Bevets: Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

The 'Wall of Separation' is sacred to Secular Fundamentalists and invisible in the constitution.


you are wrong.

again:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
Thomas Jefferson
Letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT. (1 January 1802) This statement is the origin of the often used phrase "separation of Church and State".

These are the words of the Founding Fathers themselves, well documented and well known. you sir, are wrong.
2012-02-26 08:40:23 PM
3 votes:
This is seriously the BEST the GOP has to offer???? Obama's going to wipe the floor with Santorum/Romney. For God sakes, bring back McCain excepy THIS time don't pair him with an idiot hack who spouts conservative talking point after conservative talking point.

It's candidates like this who make me wish the presidential election was "alternative-vote" (aka - automatic-runoff). Then I wouldn't look down at my ballot and think: "These are my two choices? Really?"
2012-02-26 08:38:55 PM
3 votes:
Why even bother commenting. I'd love to come up with something clever that would make him look stupid, but I can't top that. No one can.
2012-02-26 08:37:26 PM
3 votes:
Which unelectable mook will they nominate?

The sociopath who would arrest judges?
The robot who has no firm convictions?
The shiatty dumbass who wants to put God in Government?
The old wingnut?
2012-02-26 08:03:26 PM
3 votes:
Okay, nevermind. Followed links, and found a quote sufficiently irritating for me to want to curb-stomp the former-Senator.

2.bp.blogspot.com
2012-02-26 07:36:07 PM
3 votes:
The GOP candidate was responding to comments he made last October. He had said that he "almost threw up" after reading JFK's 1960 speech in which he declared his commitment to the separation of church and state.

Here is JFK's speech.
2012-02-26 07:27:02 PM
3 votes:
too bad there isn't a seperation of derp and state

i'm sure he'd be glad to make that a two-way street...
2012-02-26 06:34:06 PM
3 votes:
"This is the First Amendment. The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion. That means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square."


I'd normally be inclined to agree with this but I know damn well he doesn't want any of those wrong-faith-Muslim people in that square.
2012-02-27 04:39:29 PM
2 votes:

Joe Blowme: FlashHarry: Joe Blowme: and yet i still cant find that in the constitution. I see something about congress making no laws favoring one religion over another but nothing about "separation of church and state". I must have an old version or something.

there's nothing in the constitution about your right to own a glock 17 either. just something vague about the right to bear arms. then again, maybe i have an old version or something.

we do have, however, a letter from thomas jefferson to the danbury baptists in which he coins the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in specific reference to the 1st amendment's religion clause. plus, again, 200+ years of settled law.

The point.... you missed it like all the others.


No, you're missing the point. And that point would be that people who play the "well, this specific word or phrase is not in the Constitution, therefore your argument is invalid" game are idiots and should not be put in a position of power.

"The word 'email' isn't in the Constitution, so emails aren't protected speech!" (but they are)
"The phrase 'right to privacy' isn't in the Constitution, so we don't have a Constitutionally protected right to privacy!" (but we do)

Throwing out the "but the phrase 'separation of church and state' isn't in the Constitution" argument just shows that you have no actual point to make and are just being a disingenuous 'tard, much like Santorum is.
2012-02-27 02:59:51 PM
2 votes:
My favorite Santorum quote, from a few days ago, was when he said that Obama valued the EARTH over the people, and he thought this a big mistake. This was in reference to some EPA enforcement of regulations.

To me this is completely nuts, as if Santorum does not realize that people live on the Earth, and that because human existence is earth-based we damn better take some care of Her.

And I never hear these hypocritical christian politicos quote Jesus about feeding the orphans and the poor, tending the sick and lame, turning the other cheek, loving your neighbor, forgiving the trespassers, or even rendering unto Caesar, what is Caesar's.

Organized religion has always been about the control of the masses. From the Pharaohs, to the Divine Right of Kings, down to "One nation, under God." It is Iron Age superstition designed to keep the poor, poor, and the rich,rich.

Hey, if there was some all powerful God, why would He write a book? Has he lost His ability to communicate through burning bushes?
2012-02-27 01:22:55 PM
2 votes:

Doc Daneeka: Bevets: That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Zorach v. Clauson 343 U.S. 306 (1952)

This is just wrong. The government not showing preference to any religion is not the same as the government promoting atheism.

Secularism isn't the same thing as atheism, despite the best efforts of religious conservatives to conflate the two things. Secularism merely means that the government stays out of religious matters (to the benefit of religious believers as much as anyone).

Secularists have no problem with religious displays in "the public square." If you want to buy a billboard or a radio ad with a religious message and broadcast it to the public, knock yourself out. If you want a nativity scene or a cross or a ten commandments on your front lawn facing a busy public street, have at it. The only (only one!) thing that we ask is that you not demand that these religious messages be made by the government (on government-property such as courthouses, by public school teachers, etc.). That's it. That's not an endorsement of atheism.

Stop confusing "in the public square" with "by the government."


The thing is people like Santorum and his supports aren't confusing the public square with the government. When they say public square they really do mean the government and they are consciously being deceitful by saying public square to try to lull everybody into a false sense of security while they quietly try to implement religious laws and move this country towards a state religion.
2012-02-27 11:54:58 AM
2 votes:

Dracolich:
"I don't believe."


"Don't you think he looks tired?"
2012-02-27 01:36:53 AM
2 votes:

Axle: Could someone please point me to where this "separation of church and state" is mentioned in the Constitution?


After you point to where "Trinity" is mentioned in the Bible.
2012-02-27 01:17:31 AM
2 votes:
Seriously Republicans, this is the guy you are considering for President of the United States??? You all ought to be ashamed to be associated with the Republican party. Oh, but I guess it's better than having a Black guy in the White House, heh?
2012-02-27 12:04:38 AM
2 votes:
bugontherug 2012-02-26 08:58:17 PM
But read the first clause closely, and listen carefully whenever a conservative quotes it. They almost always misquote it. They like to eliminate the word "respecting the," change the word "establishment" to "establishing," and replacing the "of" with "a," or "any particular."
To compare:
The real Constitutional language:
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,"
The false Constitutional language conservatives try to sell us:
"Congress shall make no law establishing a religion."
The difference in meaning is vast. That word "respecting" means "relating to." That phrase "establishment of religion" is much broader than "establishing a." With their edits, conservatives change a broad prohibition on any Congressional action that so much as relates to establishing religion generally, into a narrow bar against establishing any particular state religion.


To wit:


Bevets 2012-02-26 09:51:56 PM

the First Amendment (which prohibits the establishment of a church by the federal government
2012-02-27 12:03:09 AM
2 votes:
As a Democrat, I'm laughing. As a citizen of the United States, I'm crying.
2012-02-26 11:24:34 PM
2 votes:
us.123rf.com
and
www.firstnjdistrict.org
and
archive.columbiatribune.com

We live in a theocracy disguised as a republic.
It's only getting worse as our education goes down the shiatter.
2012-02-26 10:57:03 PM
2 votes:

Doc Daneeka: Santorum and his ilk want to tear down the wall of separation because they think if they do, their particular church would get control of the government.

It never occurs to them that it would be the other way around.


Which is pretty much the point. Popular religions wax and wane, and once we hand power to one faith over another, that sets the stage for periodic shifts, which leads to chaos in our laws, chaos in our government, chaos in society.

All of our freedoms are the freedom to be offended. To disagree. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. All are based on the right to be pissed off at your neighbor's choices. And you can argue with them, you can shout, you can gather your buddies to protest, to ask grievances be redressed.

What you don't have, is the freedom to be free from those disagreements. Our freedoms are based on the rambunctious notion that we can disagree, we can argue, and still come to some sort of accommodation that doesn't infringe on someone's right to worship, speak, or disagree with you.

You have the right to try to convince them.

That doesn't guarantee that you will. Or that others will be swayed by that. You have to do the work. You have to do the convincing. You cannot just use law to silence those who disagree with you, or discount their views because they make you uncomfortable.

None of our freedoms rely on comfort. Folks who want that might want to go someplace else.
2012-02-26 10:40:41 PM
2 votes:
Damnit, I feel like I'm losing my country.

I want to cry. I have no place in Santorum's America, and that people are agreeing with him has me sick.
2012-02-26 10:31:05 PM
2 votes:
here's what wikipedia has to say about the Treaty of Tripoli:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,-and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.



hard to get around that statement. But it gets even worse for Santorum:

The Senate's ratification was only the third time in history the Senate had voted unanimously. It was the 339th time that the Senate decided to require a recorded vote. The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York papers, with no evidence of any public dissent

so it's pretty clear that everyone then agreed that the US was not a 'christian nation', nor was that EVER the intent. slam dunk case if ever there was one.
2012-02-26 10:26:44 PM
2 votes:

Karma Curmudgeon: One would think that if God wanted a truly wanted a bigger role in US government, He would have gotten better lawyers.


I'd be perfectly willing to give God just as much say in the government as he wants. All he has to do is come say he wants it.
2012-02-26 10:17:55 PM
2 votes:

StanTheMan: MrEricSir: And sure, the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the first amendment. So what? The term "gun" is not in the second amendment either.

Where did anyone here claim that "gun" is "a core tenet of American democracy"?


In the regular twice weekly gun nut threads ... the actual intent of the 2nd amendment was to allow for local militias to prevent government from becoming overbearing, not to allow rednecks to blow away the black neighbour kid.
2012-02-26 10:15:51 PM
2 votes:

StanTheMan: liberal activist judges


Anyone who uses that phrase without any hint of irony or sarcasm automatically proves themselves to be an intellect of the lowest caliber, only worthy of derision and disdain.
2012-02-26 09:54:47 PM
2 votes:
The one thing that the GOP can count on, if they put Santorum on the ticket, they're going to activate the Democratic base, and they're going to alienate a fair number of Independents and Moderates, and drive folks like myself further from the party, and pretty much guarantee a good chunk of an entire generation will never vote for the GOP again.

Good luck with that strategy to get the dumb and dumberer vote.
2012-02-26 09:53:16 PM
2 votes:
I thought conservatives were all about separation of church and state this week, because of the contraception brouhaha.

Wait, let me guess: they want separation of church and state when it means churches can be exempt from paying taxes or following any laws they don't like, but otherwise want a theocracy.
2012-02-26 09:53:05 PM
2 votes:
"Mr. Obama....TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!!!!" The establishment clause protects religion from government as much as the reverse. Just sayin'. Santorum wants to roleplay as Constantine I, complete with Persian empire hostility.
2012-02-26 09:40:22 PM
2 votes:
i think santorum should do some reading about the 30 years war. about 30% of the population of germany was killed by the conflict between protestants and catholics. the religious strife during the 1600s and 1700s is the reason why the 1st amendment was written.
2012-02-26 09:38:20 PM
2 votes:

RulerOfNone: You and your ilk want a Christian theocracy.

We won't let you have it.


Religious warfare and race warfare are just distractions from the necessary class warfare. They are steroid rage for the masses.
2012-02-26 09:38:08 PM
2 votes:

xl5150: Weaver95: you are either very poorly educated or deliberately lying.

I'd say the truly poorly educated are those who base the belief of their entire existence upon a THEORY.


Once again another moran does not know the correct definition of the word "THEORY."
2012-02-26 09:37:06 PM
2 votes:
>The separation of church and state - one of the core tenets of American democracy

Well......Except not really. This is yet another modern example of the complete failing of history and civics education in the USA. Several of the states ALREADY HAD established state religions, like Mass which even required all adule males to be members of the church and pay it tithing by law, which the states kept for many many years after ratification. The reason for religion being in the 1st amendment in the first place is actually is because they did not want the federal government from establishing its own official religion, eg they did not want the nation religion to be anglican when Massachusetts was officially catholic etc...

The original religion clauses for the First Amendment that James Madison introduced in the House of Representatives read as follows: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext, infringed."

One should notice also that the congressional committee that worked on the final versions for the amendment, in the reworded final clause in the 1st amendment says "respecting any establishment of religion" rather than "respecting the establishment of a religion."

The key term in this significant revision was "respecting," a word meaning "in regard to," according to Noah Webster's 1806 Compendious Dictionary of the English Language, the dictionary of American usage closest in time to the writing of the First Amendment. That meaning was also given in Webster's more scholarly, more comprehensive dictionary of 1828, An American Dictionary of the English Language, which defined "respecting" as "regarding; having regard to; relating to."

The conference committee rejected wording that would have applied only to Congress's passing a law to establish a religion; the chosen wording denied Congress that power, of course, but it also denied Congress the power to negate or modify by federal law any of the religious establishments in the states.

Thus, the final wording of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that three-fourths of the states ratified in 1791 contained a double prohibition on federal authority. It forbade Congress from enacting an establishment law of its own and from interfering with any state's existing establishment.


The ratification history shows this to be correct. The congress was strictly trying to keep the federal government out of the business of the states who already had established state religions. The 1st amendment had zero intent of providing any sort of silly wall between religion and the state except it took the topic of religion off the table for the federal government, it had no intent of interfering with the people of the state who were free to do whatever they wanted with regard to their religion in their own state governments.


The purpose of the political promise made during the state ratifying conventions-to write a Bill of Rights for the U.S. Constitution, a promise the First Congress duly kept-was to encourage ratification of the Constitution. The Establishment Clause likewise had a political purpose-to encourage ratification of the First Amendment. For it accommodated the seven states that had establishments of religion by stipulating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," which satisfied them that under no circumstances would the powers being granted the federal government include the authority to interfere with their religious establishments.

The establishment and free-exercise clauses in the First Amendment were thus complementary constitutional provisions with a common purpose. Each restricted federal authority with regard to religion, and together they prohibited the federal government from trespassing on the authority of the states to decide religious matters, even when that authority was used to establish a religion.

Sorry to say, the whole idea of 'separation' is totally made up and false and just not true to anyone who knows the real history.
2012-02-26 09:34:40 PM
2 votes:
Since churches can influence the government the same way as everyone else and because my minister is now my congressman I think about the only separation we have is when it comes to paying taxes. Due to several churches in my ares becoming "real estate tycoons" and owning a large portion of the property in my town , our tax base and revenues are dwindling. I think it's time for the churches to start paying taxes on their real estate and profits (except for their main chuch properties) just like everybody else. Real Estate is big business to these churches and should be taxed as such.
2012-02-26 09:19:21 PM
2 votes:

Coco LaFemme: That's interesting, because the very idea of Rick Santorum makes ME want to throw up. I don't know how this country fell as far as it did that someone with his stunning lack of intelligence can be a front-runner for the Presidency, but to say it doesn't scare the shiat out of me would be lying.


In the college story with Santorum when he said that 'Obama wants everyone to go to college. What a snob' and the people there laughed and cheered, I was sickened.

These people honestly think that ignorance is not only bliss, but a life style. Santorum is a walking insult to the country.
2012-02-26 09:02:29 PM
2 votes:

xl5150: Weaver95: you are either very poorly educated or deliberately lying.

I'd say the truly poorly educated are those who base the belief of their entire existence upon a THEORY.


Like Atomic Theory? Gravitational Theory?

At least us secular folks have a theory. You don't even have that. All you have is mythology. You're belief system is no more connected to reality than that of the Romans, or Greeks, or Babylonians, or anyone bunch of gods and goddesses.
You may as well pray to Thor. A god that wields a hammer is cooler than one that got nailed to a piece of wood.
2012-02-26 09:02:12 PM
2 votes:
PLEASE Michigan. I'm begging you. Give this guy the victory. America needs to see how ugly the Republican Party can get. What I wouldn't give to watch Santorum get crushed in the general election, and have him take down a few dozen House Republicans along with him.
2012-02-26 08:58:48 PM
2 votes:

JRoo: The founders of America were fleeing state-sponsored religious persecution and wanted a nation where all their religions were was allowed.


If you're talking about the Pilgrims, the Colonies, or even the early States, FTFY (new window).

"In newly independent America, there was a crazy quilt of state laws regarding religion. In Massachusetts, only Christians were allowed to hold public office, and Catholics were allowed to do so only after renouncing papal authority. In 1777, New York State's constitution banned Catholics from public office (and would do so until 1806). In Maryland, Catholics had full civil rights, but Jews did not. Delaware required an oath affirming belief in the Trinity. Several states, including Massachusetts and South Carolina, had official, state-supported churches."
2012-02-26 08:57:29 PM
2 votes:

Weaver95: Santorum is either a profoundly stupid man, or he's an exceptionally poor liar.


I've noticed that GOP policy these days seems to be justified by outright lies ...

My favourite is low taxes for the rich. Quite apart from the fact it's been well established by many economists that this doesn't create wealth or jobs for the lower classes, it defies simple logic - decisions to hire are based on increasing the operating profit of a business, not on what percentage of that profit goes to the taxpayer after the business owner receives it. Some of the best economic growth in US history was during periods of normal taxation.

They have to toss a few bones to the bigots to get their votes, but a lot of the rest are aspirational stupidity - I'll vote for the party that makes things better for rich people, because I want to be rich one day.

People are fundamentally gullible - repeat anything often enough, and they'll believe it. This is how Iraq 2 was justified to the masses - the WMD bullshiat was just PR cover, the real way the hearts of the unthinking proles were won was to have Bush make tons of speeches where 9/11 and Iraq were mentioned in succession. Even today, most Americans think Iraqis had a hand in 9/11.

Similarly, if you keep telling people there are invisible sky wizards from when they are young children without critical thinking skills, they rarely question it ... this is how religions survive. It should be obvious to anyone with even modest intelligence that there are no gods, but they don't choose to think about it.
2012-02-26 08:56:33 PM
2 votes:

xl5150: Weaver95: you are either very poorly educated or deliberately lying.

I'd say the truly poorly educated are those who base the belief of their entire existence upon a THEORY.


That just proves Weaver's point.
2012-02-26 08:55:56 PM
2 votes:

xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.


The f*ck it is.

Of the most famous Founding Fathers, only John Jay is considered a Christian. The majority of the Founding Father's abhorred the bible. They were deists, sure, but it was a requirement to be a Freemason. That's it. If they'd all been Christians there never would've been a farking revolution.
2012-02-26 08:52:17 PM
2 votes:

Ed Finnerty: xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.

You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that Christianity is a Pagan religion based on Pagan principles.


Actually, to be more accurate, it's a Pagan religion based on Buddhist principles.
2012-02-26 08:52:05 PM
2 votes:

Johnny Swank: God damnit Republicans? Why are you so god damn retarded?

You "moderate" republican sheep can kiss my ass. You sat around with your collective thumbs up your asses for a generation while the biblethumpers took over the GOP and you didn't say a farking peep. Enjoy the ramifications.


"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them." - Barry Goldwater, 1994.
2012-02-26 08:48:46 PM
2 votes:
every time one of my more religious/conservative friends quotes Jefferson about the evils of welfare/public assistance, I quote Jefferson about the seperation of church and state and/or his comments regarding the necesssary evils of corporations and banks.

odd how often those quaint little Jefferson quotes evaporate from their facebook pages when they realize Jefferson said more than just 'get a job ya lazy bums'.
2012-02-26 08:48:43 PM
2 votes:

Hector Remarkable: A country that puts forth an obvious sicko like this guy as a viable presidential candidate is what makes me want to throw up.


It's a sad testament to how far down the crapper the Republican party has gone that Santorum can even sniff the nomination.
2012-02-26 08:45:53 PM
2 votes:
Look, guys, this man is never in a million years going to be president. Only a small fraction of a fraction of the population would vote for him. Why are we giving him the time of day? It can't be just for the lulz, is it?

Someone just take the shovel away from this guy before he hits Australia. It's getting sad now.
2012-02-26 08:45:46 PM
2 votes:
"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute"

Well fortunately for him (and apparently to the disappointment of farkers everywhere) America doesn't have an absolute separation of church and state. There are a number of cases that govern when and how government and religion may interact, and not one of them says "They can't."

For example, laws that appear to be religiously motivated are subject to the test outlined in Lemon v. Kurtzman. Laws that appear to discriminate against religious positions are subject to the tests outlined in cases like Employment Division v. Smith and Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (which also happens to be the best / most difficult case name ever). Just last week a federal district court ruled (new window) that employers are required to exempt employees with conscientious objectors to Plan B contraceptives from some of the laws in the insurance mandate.\

If the separation of church and state were absolute, that would indeed pose quite a problem, because it would almost certainly interfere with the free expression and free exercise rights of religious people.

/Atheist
//Hate Santorum
///But that doesn't mean he's always wrong
2012-02-26 08:45:34 PM
2 votes:

JRoo: The founders of America were fleeing state-sponsored religious persecution and wanted a nation where all religions were allowed.

Separation of church and state is WHY people in this country have freedom of religion.


This.
2012-02-26 08:45:28 PM
2 votes:
Was it Santorum that I heard on this news earlier today call Obama weak for apologizing for the Koran-burning incident? So apologizing for American troops burning the holy book of one of the largest religions in the world is now considered caving to the terrorists? I'm sure the 2 million Americans who adhere to Islam still like hearing that over 10 years after the September 11 attacks. Same for roughly 1/4 of the world's population. Eight to ten years ago, it might've been "cool" to make that equation, but I think many ignorant people have been educated on the matter since then.
2012-02-26 08:44:39 PM
2 votes:

Weaver95: Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers himself, coined the phrase 'separation of church and state'. it is demonstrably, quotably, VERIFIABLY the vision of the Founding Fathers that there SHOULD be a wall between religion and government. This cannot be any more clear - Jefferson himself wrote on this subject extensively, and his latters are extremely well documented and commented upon. Santorum is either a profoundly stupid man, or he's an exceptionally poor liar.


i40.tinypic.com
2012-02-26 08:44:15 PM
2 votes:
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (new window)
If you think people like this are dangerous, sign up. $25 a year, and it's money well spent.
2012-02-26 08:43:35 PM
2 votes:
why? why do the republicans make this so easy?
2012-02-26 08:42:59 PM
2 votes:
Has anybody told him that tax exempt status for all churches is voluntary? They can choose to get involved in politics if they accept that they have to pay the same taxes as all of the rest of us.
2012-02-26 08:40:26 PM
2 votes:

jayhawk88:

...to say that people of faith have no role in the public square?

What a prick.

People of faith absolutely can have a role in the "public square". Far, far greater men than you did just that when they created this country. But they had the intelligence/courage to put their faith aside when making decisions for the state, which is all we would expect of you. But no, you don't have the moral fiber to do so, you're too reliant on the crutch of religion to tell you what is right and wrong. Too scared to face choices or decisions yourself.

Go away.


Came here to say this.
People of faith can have all the say they want. They just can't make their holy book the basis and reason behind enacting or enforcing laws.
Santorum is an incredibly ignorant and intellectually dishonest piece of sh*t.


xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.


[Citation needed]
2012-02-26 08:40:03 PM
2 votes:
Actually I'd like to see Santorum win the presidency - but not for the conservative crazy vision of Jesusland. Rather I would look forward to the inevitable "American Xtian Purging" that would immediately follow his time in office - finally destroying the heinous concept of social conservatism.

/ Here's to hoping for a 2nd term Obama delivering on some shovel-ready "re-education" camps that the conservatives keep fapping about..
2012-02-26 08:39:54 PM
2 votes:

Johnny Swank: God damnit Republicans? Why are you so god damn retarded?

You "moderate" republican sheep can kiss my ass. You sat around with your collective thumbs up your asses for a generation while the biblethumpers took over the GOP and you didn't say a farking peep. Enjoy the ramifications.


If it were only affecting them, I'd be content to sit back and enjoy the show. But, the current American Taliban Republicans threaten all of us, especially if you're something other than a rich white christian male.
2012-02-26 08:39:31 PM
2 votes:
I look forward to followup to this:
1.bp.blogspot.com
2012-02-26 08:35:41 PM
2 votes:

Ed Finnerty: xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.

You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that Christianity is a Pagan religion based on Pagan principles.


Why do you hate Mithra?
2012-02-26 08:33:56 PM
2 votes:
You know, George Washington once mentioned in a letter to a friend that he had separate smoking hemp which he enjoyed but for some reason smoking weed isn't a core tenet of American democracy. And the country is poorer for it.
2012-02-26 08:33:44 PM
2 votes:

Bevets: Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

The 'Wall of Separation' is sacred to Secular Fundamentalists and invisible in the constitution.


Oh shut the fark up you goddam talking point spewing 'bot.
2012-02-26 08:33:19 PM
2 votes:
MOAR!!!!

www.trafalgarmarineservices.co.uk
2012-02-26 08:30:34 PM
2 votes:
Yo Ricky, It's a feature, not a bug.

Idiot.
2012-02-26 07:54:45 PM
2 votes:
So Rick would be okay if an Islamic group decided to pray towards Mecca at the WTC site? He wouldn't called for the government to step in?
2012-02-26 07:54:43 PM
2 votes:
Dear God. Please let your son, Rick Santorum, be the Republican Presidential candidate.

Amen,
TeddyBallGame
2012-02-27 04:35:23 PM
1 votes:

Teufelaffe: No, that's not what nuclear reactors/bombs do. The nuclear reaction releases potential atomic energy by splitting atoms but it neither creates nor destroys matter in the process.


Sigh.

Matter is that which has mass. When something undergoes a nuclear reaction its mass changes, as mass has been converted into energy or vice versa. For example in standard U235 fission this loss of mass is about 0.6%.
2012-02-27 02:40:16 PM
1 votes:
What really gets me about the Right is that they rant on and on about how Obama wants to fundamentally change America and throw the constitution in the garbage, when it is them who are blatantly trying to revise history and change America into something that the Founding Fathers fought to avoid.
2012-02-27 02:11:49 PM
1 votes:

Ambivalence: Weaver95: Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers himself, coined the phrase 'separation of church and state'. it is demonstrably, quotably, VERIFIABLY the vision of the Founding Fathers that there SHOULD be a wall between religion and government. This cannot be any more clear - Jefferson himself wrote on this subject extensively, and his latters are extremely well documented and commented upon. Santorum is either a profoundly stupid man, or he's an exceptionally poor liar.

While you are right that Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers believed freedom of religion and "separation of church and state" were foundational principles for their newly created nation, that is not to say it was a universally held conviction among ALL founding fathers.

But, ultimately, it is the founding conviction that has stood the test of time.

It is disingenuous to say the "founding fathers" wanted one thing or another as if there was perfect accord among all the colonies. The truth is that then, as today, there was a very diverse range of viewpoints on a very wide range of topics.

It is also disingenuous to invoke the founding fathers as justification of one viewpoint over another as if the last 200+ years have seen no progress or expansion of liberties and movement towards equality. It is incredible that a major political party wants so dearly to go back 50, 100, 200 years to days that are long gone. How can we expect to live in, much less compete in, in a modern world where women are second class citizens? Where racial bigotry is justification for egregious civil rights violations? Where everyone is expected to revere Jesus Christ, but not even pretend to follow his teachings?

This is the 21st century. We cannot solve the problems of today by taking up the problems of yesteryear.


Jesus realized that a religion was a crappy basis for government. How conveniently theocrats forget "render unto Ceasar".
2012-02-27 02:05:09 PM
1 votes:

colon_pow: some people don't see gay marriage as a good thing.


Such people should have every right to not be gay married, and I would personally fight to defend that right.

If they're just preventing other people from getting gay married, then they're just being jerks. Fark those guys.


as for denying prenatal healthcare, that is just your typical scare-mongering.

don't be a monger.


Prenatal healthcare creates $1.49 in savings for every $1 spent. It's fiscally responsible and makes America stronger.
2012-02-27 01:06:19 PM
1 votes:

Doc Daneeka: They can't (or won't) imagine that likely the reverse will be true instead.

Separation of Church and State is what protects religious freedom in this country. Some religious clerics and ministers understand this, but they are unfortunately in the minority.


from the Smithsonian article linked to above...

In newly independent America, there was a crazy quilt of state laws regarding religion. In Massachusetts, only Christians were allowed to hold public office, and Catholics were allowed to do so only after renouncing papal authority. In 1777, New York State's constitution banned Catholics from public office (and would do so until 1806). In Maryland, Catholics had full civil rights, but Jews did not. Delaware required an oath affirming belief in the Trinity. Several states, including Massachusetts and South Carolina, had official, state-supported churches.

In 1779, as Virginia's governor, Thomas Jefferson had drafted a bill that guaranteed legal equality for citizens of all religions-including those of no religion-in the state. It was around then that Jefferson famously wrote, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." But Jefferson's plan did not advance-until after Patrick ("Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death") Henry introduced a bill in 1784 calling for state support for "teachers of the Christian religion."

Future President James Madison stepped into the breach. In a carefully argued essay titled "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," the soon-to-be father of the Constitution eloquently laid out reasons why the state had no business supporting Christian instruction. Signed by some 2,000 Virginians, Madison's argument became a fundamental piece of American political philosophy, a ringing endorsement of the secular state that "should be as familiar to students of American history as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution," as Susan Jacoby has written in Freethinkers, her excellent history of American secularism.

Among Madison's 15 points was his declaration that "the Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every...man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an inalienable right."

Madison also made a point that any believer of any religion should understand: that the government sanction of a religion was, in essence, a threat to religion. "Who does not see," he wrote, "that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?"



Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-True-Histor y-of-Religious-Tolerance.html#ixzz1nbeESs9r
2012-02-27 12:46:36 PM
1 votes:
2012-02-27 12:40:35 PM
1 votes:

Joe Blowme: truthseeker2083: Joe Blowme: and yet i still cant find that in the constitution. I see something about congress making no laws favoring one religion over another but nothing about "separation of church and state". I must have an old version or something.

That issue has been covered multiple times in this thread already. Read it again, slowly, and you might understand it. Then again, maybe you won't...

You probably believe the Constitution protects your owning guns don't you? Hint: Guns aren't mentioned, just as that phrase isn't mentioned. Just as the SCOTUS has upheld that you can own a gub, they have upheld the line between church and state. Quit lying to yourself.

I know of the interpretation, i'm just saying it is not in there. People use it to do stupid things like restrict freedom of speech when it has to do with god. do you know they actually prayed in schools durrig the founders time and not once did they go ape shiat and sue or fight to have it stopped? Not saying i want prayer in school so keep the sand out of your crotch, just saying if that is what they meant then they surely would have put a stop to it then right?

/you comparing it with the second amendment is weak
//the 2nd garuntees the rest


Comparing it to the 2nd isn't weak just because you don't like it. You talked about the phrasing not being there, I countered with another phrase not being there. Back when it was written, they may have prayed in school, but they also relied on leeches in medicine, should we do away with modern techniques? We've changed a lot since then, just because certain politicians and those that support them don't want to get with the times doesn't mean we should all be held back.

Maybe you should 'get the sand out of your crotch' and realize that we aren't fighting what happened in the past, but trying to protect the future from christian nutbags ruining what we have.
2012-02-27 12:34:08 PM
1 votes:

Bevets: That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Zorach v. Clauson 343 U.S. 306 (1952)


This is just wrong. The government not showing preference to any religion is not the same as the government promoting atheism.

Secularism isn't the same thing as atheism, despite the best efforts of religious conservatives to conflate the two things. Secularism merely means that the government stays out of religious matters (to the benefit of religious believers as much as anyone).

Secularists have no problem with religious displays in "the public square." If you want to buy a billboard or a radio ad with a religious message and broadcast it to the public, knock yourself out. If you want a nativity scene or a cross or a ten commandments on your front lawn facing a busy public street, have at it. The only (only one!) thing that we ask is that you not demand that these religious messages be made by the government (on government-property such as courthouses, by public school teachers, etc.). That's it. That's not an endorsement of atheism.

Stop confusing "in the public square" with "by the government."
2012-02-27 12:13:56 PM
1 votes:
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."

- John F. Kennedy

"FARK THAT NOISE! THEOCRACY FOR ALL!"

- Rick Santorum
2012-02-27 12:01:06 PM
1 votes:

colon_pow: hubiestubert: colon_pow: this is fark. the far-left lunatic fringe of the progressive party, where mother theresa and ronald reagan are history's greatest monsters.

they shun anything that is good, like cockroaches scurry when the light is switched on.

Homophobia and denying prenatal healthcare are somehow "good"? I understand a certain degree of trolling is your MO, but damnation at some point, don't you just feel dirty typing this tripe?

some people don't see gay marriage as a good thing. as for denying prenatal healthcare, that is just your typical scare-mongering.


They will never be required to marry folks in their own churches. They don't have to like it, and they can take care of their own. Demanding that everyone else follow their interpretations of Leviticus is about on par with demanding that every male child in the US have a bris.

Likewise, don't be dense. You're brighter than that, and shilling like this is beneath you.
2012-02-27 11:49:04 AM
1 votes:

colon_pow: some people don't see gay marriage as a good thing.


If you don't think gay marriage is a good thing, then don't marry another dude.

Problem solved.
2012-02-27 11:23:16 AM
1 votes:

OnlyM3: This is what I find so hilarious about the moon-bat positions. Actual tenets of the Founding Documents are "fluid" and "flexible and outright denied, yet any off hand statement is an "Undeniable tenet".


"A perfect all-knowing magic man in the sky who made everything with magic wrote a perfect magic book two thousand years ago and we should base our whole government on this!"

"Uhh... sorry, I don't believe you."

"Crazy lefty moonbat!"
2012-02-27 11:21:40 AM
1 votes:

hubiestubert: The sad thing is, the separation of church and state is to protect religion.


That's what these idiots don't understand.

As I said above, people like Santorum imagine that if they chip away at separation of church and state, that their religion will get control of the government.

They can't (or won't) imagine that likely the reverse will be true instead.

Separation of Church and State is what protects religious freedom in this country. Some religious clerics and ministers understand this, but they are unfortunately in the minority.
2012-02-27 10:36:03 AM
1 votes:

colon_pow: this is fark. the far-left lunatic fringe of the progressive party, where mother theresa and ronald reagan are history's greatest monsters.

they shun anything that is good, like cockroaches scurry when the light is switched on.


Homophobia and denying prenatal healthcare are somehow "good"? I understand a certain degree of trolling is your MO, but damnation at some point, don't you just feel dirty typing this tripe?
2012-02-27 09:02:19 AM
1 votes:
Separation is a principle, not a "core tenent" (SIC)

And the core idea was that you can be free to believe whatever you like and government cannot force you into a faith. It is not any part of the Constitution, and there is no prohibition to anyone in public service to express their religious beliefs. (See the First Amendment.)

I believe you are an idiot.
2012-02-27 08:19:01 AM
1 votes:

Bevets: The letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (in which Jefferson assured church leaders that the government would not meddle in church affairs) was written ten years after the First Amendment was ratified. Secular Fundamentalists have a habit of conflating this letter with the First Amendment (which prohibits the establishment of a church by the federal government, but allowed state churches) Jefferson and Madison attended church services in the US Capitol.


regardless, it contains a specific explanation of the separation clause by one of the principal architects of our democracy. if you don't mind, i'll take his word over yours.
2012-02-27 08:18:12 AM
1 votes:
I'm just hoping the Republican field this time around is so awful because the ones with some sort of a clue thought they'd leave the field in 2012 to the incumbent (who has a pretty big advantage) and keep their powder dry until 2016.

It's a small hope I have.
2012-02-27 08:10:51 AM
1 votes:

Bevets: The 'Wall of Separation' is sacred to Secular Fundamentalists and invisible in the constitution.


Much like "checks and balances", "limited government", and "separation of powers"?

The verbatim words are not there, but the principle is expressed.
It's interesting how the GOP attitude has changed over time, however.

Republican Party Platform of 1892:
The ultimate reliance of free popular government is the intelligence of the people, and the maintenance of freedom among men. We therefore declare anew our devotion to liberty of thought and conscience, of speech and press, and approve all agencies and instrumentalities which contribute to the education of the children of the land, but while insisting upon the fullest measure of religious liberty, we are opposed to any union of Church and State.


Republican Party Platform of 2008:
Our Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and forbids any religious test for public office, and it likewise prohibits the establishment of a state-sponsored creed. The balance between those two ideals has been distorted by judicial rulings which attempt to drive faith out of the public arena. The public display of the Ten Commandments does not violate the U.S. Constitution and accurately reflects the Judeo-Christian heritage of our country.


mekki: Only a small fraction of a fraction of the population would vote for him.


I'm sorry, but 42% is only a "small" fraction in the sense of "not large enough to win in a two-way race".

oh_please: Really? This is the best and brightest we can come up with?


Best, brightest, and most successful. Yes.

Admittedly, the Democrats don't exactly have a deep bench on their side either, but if President Obama dropped dead of a heart attack this afternoon, they could slot in Hillary for 2012 with minimal disruption; and if he doesn't, they have at least Andrew Cuomo in the wings for 2016.

Weaver95: you are either very poorly educated or deliberately lying.


The "either" suggests the options are exclusive, which does not seem to be the case.

StanTheMan: Other than that


...not mentioning the GOP and Democratic party platform positions on "church and state" between the Civil War and WWI....
2012-02-27 08:09:30 AM
1 votes:

StanTheMan: Look farkheads and subby, as a Republican, I wouldn't vote for this anti-Libertarian social conservative Santorum to get out of a burning phone booth, and he scares the fark out of me in terms of ruining a chance to eject Obama from the White House, but the expression "separation of church and state" is not, in fact, "one of the core tenets of American democracy."

It's a term used in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to Bible-thumping Connecticut Baptists - who would make Santorum look like Bill Maher - assuring them that yes, you will be able to practice your nice little religion in this new federal system. In fact, Connecticut had an official state religion until 1818 (Congregational Church). New Hampshire had one until 1877!

The Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the states until like 40 years after Jefferson's death. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause was not incorporated (applied to the states) until 1947!

So, to recap, the term "separation of church and state" was not:

1) Ever actually in the Constitution;
2) Written by the author of the First Amendment (Madison);
3) Used by Jefferson to advance the Establishment Clause (it was actually used to advance the Free Exercise Clause).
4) Even relevant to the States until roughly the time of the Roswell incident.

Other than that, spot-on, Fark constitutional historians!


You are a retard.
2012-02-27 07:21:22 AM
1 votes:
Espertron: Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

2012-02-27 06:30:33 AM
1 votes:

LovingTeacher: I will quite happily give you the right to not use birth-control, not get abortions and pray until your knees bleed, please be so kind as to recognize that I have every right to do exactly the opposite of you if I see fit.



The problem with this premise is that it is a one-way street. You may see the situation as 2 groups of people with differing opinions learning to live with each others differences.

They see it as you being a filthy heretic, and an affront to their God.
2012-02-27 06:26:26 AM
1 votes:

xl5150: Weaver95: you are either very poorly educated or deliberately lying.

I'd say the truly poorly educated are those who base the belief of their entire existence upon a THEORY.


Theories have observed and experimental data behind them. Religious beliefs are based around anecdote and blind faith.
2012-02-27 04:08:26 AM
1 votes:
Hey little girl... Guess what? They want to separate church & state.
3.bp.blogspot.com
I know right? What kind of person doesn't believe in an invisible man that gives you life, only to decide if he wants to throw you in a lake of fire or not. Pfffft. As if. Let's skip on over to the church & ask him for good fortune, telepathically!!! Maybe when the pastor is done fondling us, he can tell us how that old man wrangled two of every animal & put them all on a boat together. Religion is awesome & magical!!! Who would not want it sewn into our government?
2012-02-27 02:47:10 AM
1 votes:
I know there are other comments before me that say this, and I am sort of late to the game I'm sure, but people like him MUST be stopped they are dangerous to all of our freedoms, including religious people. If you disagree slightly with him, you are wrong. Jew...wrong, evangelical...wrong, muslim...wrong(and in gitmo). This way of "thinking" is a poison to our country. It has to stop now.
2012-02-27 01:48:43 AM
1 votes:

Ambivalence: The exact term "seperation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution, however the establishment clause has, time and time again, been interpreted by the judiciary to MEAN exactly that.


This same argument is used by people who say that the exact word "privacy" does not exist in the Constitution, so therefore the Founders clearly intended the establishment of an army of federal sexual stormtroopers to kick in bedroom doors and double-tap people engaged in blowjobs.
2012-02-27 01:44:04 AM
1 votes:

0Icky0: Axle: Could someone please point me to where this "separation of church and state" is mentioned in the Constitution?

After you point to where "Trinity" is mentioned in the Bible.


Ooo...or "Christian nation". Where's that in the constitution I wonder?
2012-02-27 01:42:26 AM
1 votes:

Axle: Could someone please point me to where this "separation of church and state" is mentioned in the Constitution?


The exact term "seperation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution, however the establishment clause has, time and time again, been interpreted by the judiciary to MEAN exactly that.

If you or anyone else is too stupid or petty to understand that, then you probably don't have much business running for president. Or actually being in any federal government capacity. Becuase you can't take an oath to defend the constitution if you don't farking know what it means.
2012-02-27 01:14:41 AM
1 votes:

bmihura: olddeegee: Conservatives hate when anybody attacks the Constitution. Except when they do it.

Maybe I have a different copy of the Constitution, but mine doesn't mention "separation of Church and State". How does your copy read?

Actually I think it's a good idea, but my copy of the Constitution does not mention it. Check yours.


Funny, my copy of the constitution doesn't mention the "right to own guns" either. But supreme court rulings have, time and time again, affirmed the interpretation of the 2nd ammendment to mean just that.

Just as the supreme court has interpretted "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to mean "separation of church and state".

So while the language may not be exact, the constitution means no more and no less than the Supreme Court says it means, and it has affimed that time and time again.
2012-02-27 01:13:54 AM
1 votes:

Your Average Witty Fark User: Go ahead- allow the church to have influence over government. Be prepared for civil war all over again.


Most people who want this have no idea that this could mean power to people of other faiths, or even to those of their own faith who have very different ideas on what that faith's policies should be.
It comes from living exclusively inside a small bubble of friends and family who all believe as they do. You know..morons.
2012-02-27 01:13:12 AM
1 votes:

6655321: Rick Santorum is the year's Sarah Palin.


No, Santorum is worse than Palin. Palin was laughable but generally ignorable; little more than an idiotic figurehead for like-minded rednecks. Santorum, on the other hand, could very well be the last President the USA ever has before its dissolution. Why Dear Pope Sphincter is out campaigning when he should be strapped to a bed and pumped full of Thorazine is a mystery to me. Honestly, he is completely farking terrifying to anybody with an IQ over room temperature.
2012-02-27 12:28:52 AM
1 votes:
The problem with the pious is that they never ever learn from history. It's the same
old shtick year after year, decade after decade, century after century. Just substitute
new faces and put the same old words in their mouths.
Anti-intellectualism is not a new trait amongst the pious. It's effects are scattered throughout
our history books. Santorum is just another example of anti-intellectualism that has crawled out from under
it's rock again. It's the age old attempt, by the pious, to blame those who will exercise free and
independent thought for all of societies perceived ills.
2012-02-26 11:59:18 PM
1 votes:
Wow. I'm sorry, but if you vote for this tool you are a bad person. Just a terrible, horrible, evil piece of shiat.

In fact, you should probably move to some medieval mid-east shiathole. Stop trying to make Jesu-sharia here in America you farking fruitbats.
2012-02-26 11:55:53 PM
1 votes:

seventypercent: "Freedom is not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom."


Technically, he's right. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
2012-02-26 11:42:09 PM
1 votes:

Silverstaff: StanTheMan:
Really? Then I guess I should hand my Bar card back in since I have such ignorance of the Constitution (i.e., disagree with liberal activist judges interpretation of their role, and you).


If you're using the term "liberal activist judges" in a non-sarcastic way to describe Federal Judges who have interpreted the Ninth Amendment to state that there is a right to privacy. . .then yes, hand in your Bar card because you're a partisan hack who doesn't understand the farking Constitution.

For all I farking know, you're no lawyer, just another Farker with his GED in Law, so saying you're a lawyer means jack shiat here. Try demonstrating some actual knowledge of Constitutional Law other than what you picked up on FOX News.

So, we only have the rights explicitly laid out in the Constitution, no more, and fark that Ninth Amendment trying to let people have rights that aren't laid out in black & white? The idea of a "right to privacy" is intrinsic to basic human dignity. Griswold v. Connecticut was about the idea that the sexual relations of a married couple, occurring in the privacy of their own bedroom, was none of the farking business of the Government. You're saying it's "liberal activist judges" who say that it's wrong for the government to meddle in the details of someones sex life with their wife, behind closed doors?

. . .I knew there was a reason I had you highlighted in Red with the tag "Confirmed Troll" well before this thread, StanTheMan, you reminded me why though.

I'll give this thread credit, it's bringing out the trolls in full force.


Thing is, is is "liberal activist judges" who built the constitutional framework protecting our most cherished liberties--like the cluster of rights comprising what I call 'the right to sexual self-determination." The "states' rights" movement is now and has always been about the rights of states to trample individual liberties. Those individual rights anger conservatives, who call the judges who've protected them "liberal activists."
2012-02-26 11:13:10 PM
1 votes:
Is there any other way to login than to post a comment?

Also, the separation of church and state and the abolition of religion are not the same thing. Much in the same way that the integration of church and state and the abolition of dissent are the same thing.

No one is saying religious persons can't vote in accordance with their faith, just that a citizen is a citizen, and all citizens are equal. Welcome to democracy.
2012-02-26 11:08:20 PM
1 votes:

Karma Curmudgeon: Weaver, you deserve a medal for this thread. Seriously."


the lie of 'america is a christian nation' irritates me to no end. probably because its so easily exposed as a lie and yet...the religious right keeps repeating it.
2012-02-26 11:04:31 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com

James Madison (new window): Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents.....We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
2012-02-26 10:49:37 PM
1 votes:
RTFA. So this is what desperate flailing looks like, huh? Like a man about to drown, with no idea how he might survive, unless he could just push himself up and out, if he could just push hard enough. It's heartbreaking to witness.

Silverstaff: I would say that a treaty ratified unanimously by a Senate full of Founding Fathers, with the full support of an administration who was filled with Founding Fathers (much of the Senate were combat vets from the Revolution, if they weren't politicians during the war, they were fighting it), with not a single dissenting vote in the Senate or any historic record of any letters of protest or public outcry against this treaty explicitly saying the United States is not a Christian state is extremely strong evidence that the founders of this nation never intended for this county to be Christian, it is intended to be secular.


Not the least also because at least half the Founders were Deists rather than Christians. Jefferson loved the New Testament for its philosophical and moral content, but so objected to what he considered a ridiculous story about a magical man that he wrote his own version, with all that 'fanciful' stuff cut out. You can still buy The Jefferson Bible today. I own a copy myself.

Gleeman: /used to be a Republican, until they went crazy
//now registered as Independent


I remember Lincoln Chafee (R.I.) responding to criticisms that he 'abandoned' the GOP by saying that he didn't the party, the party left him. I've been saying for some time now that the GOP has been gradually purging itself of its best people, and will eventually have to pay for it, through increasingly dramatic failures. That will unfortunately give undo strength to the Democratic Party, with predictable results that will seem oddly familiar to people: arrogance, corruption, and everything else that inevitably comes of unchecked power. So this isn't just bad for Republicans, it's bad for Democrats, too. Eventually, it's bad for everyone.

Artcurus: This man scares the hell of me.


I wouldn't let it concern you so much. The president is not, despite how Americans act about it, a despot. He has substantial powers, but they are constrained by law. Most of the things people get freaked out or stoked over regarding various candidates are things that are actually the purview of Congress or the States, not the presidency.

JWideman: This. He thinks the entire US is like Butler, PA.


Now *that's* scary. I've been there, more than once.

propasaurus: xl5150: Weaver95: you are either very poorly educated or deliberately lying.

I'd say the truly poorly educated are those who base the belief of their entire existence upon a THEORY.

Ah, troll it is.


Don't be too quick to judge. He could just be an idiot. That's very common, too.

ib_thinkin: JRoo: The founders of America were fleeing state-sponsored religious persecution and wanted a nation where all their religions were was allowed.

If you're talking about the Pilgrims, the Colonies, or even the early States, FTFY (new window).

"In newly independent America, there was a crazy quilt of state laws regarding religion. In Massachusetts, only Christians were allowed to hold public office, and Catholics were allowed to do so only after renouncing papal authority. In 1777, New York State's constitution banned Catholics from public office (and would do so until 1806). In Maryland, Catholics had full civil rights, but Jews did not. Delaware required an oath affirming belief in the Trinity. Several states, including Massachusetts and South Carolina, had official, state-supported churches."


It's true. The Ivy League started as a collection of divinity schools, each set up to bolster the official state denomination of its particular state. The big white church you see in the middle of every town in Connecticut is there for an important historical reason: At the early days, you couldn't have a town until you had a church -- and it had to be UCC. These are still all UCC churches, to this day. In many Connecticut towns, the UCC still has some claim over most or all of the property in town centres. (This doesn't violate separation, by the way, because it's based in common land laws, the same as a municipality leasing land from a church, which is also legal.)

Separation wasn't just someone's neat idea. It was absolutely essential to a functioning nation with such disparate religious beliefs. Even more so now than then.

BitwiseShift: How are they going to justify the church tax (where you pay the government for the upkeep of churches)?


We've been over this already. Church taxes are tax-deductible pass-through tithes, entirely voluntary for everyone involved, and cost the state nothing.

mod3072: I thought that it was the Republicans who were pissing their pants in fear of religious law taking over the US?


Yeah, but that's different because Muzlumz.

Weaver95: Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers


It depends somewhat on how you define 'Founding Father'. He was enormously influential during the Declaration and post-war peace, the early Confederation government, and certainly later during the federation. But he was not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention that drafted the original Constitution. His ideas were undoubtedly influential upon the Framers, but he was not in a position to infuse them directly into the document.

FirstNationalBastard: American Taliban


Heh.

www.laughparty.com

I think my favourite is On Your Knees and Praline.

Ed Finnerty: xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.

You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that Christianity is a Pagan religion based on Pagan principles.


Well, sure, if you want to be pedantic and trace it all the way back to its ancient roots in Zoroastrian sun worship. But that would be rude and insensitive.

Bevets: Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

The 'Wall of Separation' is sacred to Secular Fundamentalists and invisible in the constitution.


Hee. I'll give you this, Bevs, you never disappoint. I'm going to hire you someday. I don't know for what yet. Something you'll enjoy, I promise.

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Get elected. Impose this.


Why do so many people seem to think that the president has powers like this? He doesn't.
2012-02-26 10:48:16 PM
1 votes:

Bevets: Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

The 'Wall of Separation' is sacred to Secular Fundamentalists and invisible in the constitution.


If they wanted a Christian nation, I would think that the terms "Jesus" or "Christ" would appear at least once somewhere in the founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights). But they don't appear.
2012-02-26 10:48:02 PM
1 votes:
I never thought a day would come when I would feel the need to donate to a political candidate and volunteer time to their campaign.

I promise if Santorum gets the republican nomination, I will donate $100 to Obama and volunteer my time to make sure Santorum loses.
2012-02-26 10:43:44 PM
1 votes:
Santorum and his ilk want to tear down the wall of separation because they think if they do, their particular church would get control of the government.

It never occurs to them that it would be the other way around.
2012-02-26 10:40:25 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: I do have to wonder just WHY Santorum and the religious right even bother making such statements? documentary evidence easily and quite handily disproves their statements before they even get off the ground. which goes back to my earlier statement - either santorum is very poorly educated...or he's deliberately lying to voters.


he's lying to voters because it works. People aren't educated in history and actually believe him when he says that bullshiat because it confirms their own desires.
2012-02-26 10:38:03 PM
1 votes:

Bevets: Can we agree that your carefully constructed strawman 'America was founded as a Christian nation' ignores the point being discussed: the 'Wall of Separation' has never been what Secular Fundamentalists would like it to be?


ah, so you're going to move the goal posts. good call. you could also change the subject and throw in a nice ad hominem attack for good measure. who knows? it might even work.

still....that Treaty of Tripoli thing is out of the bag now. gonna be damn near impossible for you (or anyone on the religious right really) to go around saying the US is a 'christian nation'. it puts paid to the entire conversation. it undermines Santorums statements regarding the seperation of church and state too for that matter. Not that Jefferson himself didn't already destroy Santorum's outright lies on the subject.

I do have to wonder just WHY Santorum and the religious right even bother making such statements? documentary evidence easily and quite handily disproves their statements before they even get off the ground. which goes back to my earlier statement - either santorum is very poorly educated...or he's deliberately lying to voters.
2012-02-26 10:37:43 PM
1 votes:

Espertron: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782


SO MUCH THIS.
2012-02-26 10:36:44 PM
1 votes:
Rick Santorum is the year's Sarah Palin.

With the present SCOTUS, seperation of American citizens and Constituional Rights is almost complete.
2012-02-26 10:30:26 PM
1 votes:
A couple of people have said (eloquently, even!) that this is not a big deal, and that Santorum is actually correct. Technically speaking, yes, the separation is not absolute. However, the broader issue is that this, taken in context with every other (nutjob) thing that Santorum has said, makes it clear that your point is not the one he is making. He is, like many others of his ilk, perfectly content to have a theocracy in place here. As long as it's his religion, and not some "false" theology.
2012-02-26 10:24:32 PM
1 votes:

JerseyTim: The GOP candidate was responding to comments he made last October. He had said that he "almost threw up" after reading JFK's 1960 speech in which he declared his commitment to the separation of church and state.

Here is JFK's speech.


And JFK was trying to make the public accept the fact that a Catholic president wouldn't try to impose "Papistry" on America. i'm sure if JFK knew idiots like Newt and Rick were now the new Catholics he'd be spinning in his grave harder than John John's plane crashing into the ocean.
2012-02-26 10:23:25 PM
1 votes:

xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.


The number of times the words "Jesus" or "Christ" are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) is precisely zero.

The first clause of the first sentence of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The country is eighty percent Christian. But its founding documents do not lay the legal foundation for a Christian nation.
2012-02-26 10:03:46 PM
1 votes:

xl5150: Gawdzila: Lol. I hope you have something better than that.
What other of these apparently obvious pieces of reality am I missing that make your point so self-evident?


Link (new window)



[itodyaso.files.wordpress.com image 450x236]


If you are relying on that link as a defence of your point, you might want to try again.

- The Declaration of Independence never refers to a Christian God, but rather 'Creator', 'Nature's God', 'Supreme Judge of the World', 'Divine Providence'. You may assume it is a Christian God, but they never stated that.

- The Constitution uses 'Year of our Lord' and refers to Sunday - seriously, what calendar were they supposed to use to describe dates and days?

- The Paris Peace Treaty contains "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity". Considering that at least 2 of the countries in the treaty - France and Spain were Catholic, and the treaty was brokered in France, it is not very surprising that such an line is present. At least provide evidence that the US representatives wanted or required it added to the document.

Also, you are going to get hammered by the Treaty of Tripoli (new window) if you are going to rely on treaties in your defence.

- "All men are created equal," was about the holy Trinity - simple blind assertion without evidence. Equality before the law is a classical liberalism tenet Link (new window) and even has some Greek roots.

I'm not American and even I can pull your "evidence" apart.

.
2012-02-26 09:46:26 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: Santorum is either a profoundly stupid man, or he's an exceptionally poor liar


Weaver, you might want to rethink your statement. It infers mutual exclusivity of options.
2012-02-26 09:45:37 PM
1 votes:
Sort of sad that a former Congresscritter just pretends that the Federalist papers just never existed, and that the Constitution is inconvenient.

The Founders actually expounded pretty prolifically on what they intended. But a lot of folks just ignore those statements, because they don't say what they wished they'd said. Now. They were fine with not so long ago, because they could cloak themselves with flag to hide behind freedom of religion. Now that others might be covered, it's a bad thing.

Deal with it. Or move.
2012-02-26 09:43:42 PM
1 votes:

xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.


Treaty of Tripoli, ratified June 10th 1797, Article 11:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,
2012-02-26 09:39:03 PM
1 votes:
will someone explain to me why, when the constitution says "regarding the "establishment" of religion" (emphasis mine), we don't TAX THE farkING BEJESUS out of those clowns?
2012-02-26 09:39:02 PM
1 votes:
FTFA: "not the founders' vision." . . . "[Obama believes in] some phony ideal, some phony theology ... not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology,"

How is it that politicians (on all sides) always get away with asserting what other people, both living and dead, believe? That's an incredible dick move.

The almighty founders lived hundreds of years ago. So much has changed since then: politically, culturally and scientifically. Even religious practice (an element of culture) has changed a lot. It's not just the Bible thumpers, who are accustomed to looking to (an extremely selective view of) ancient history for rules by which to live, focusing on centuries old ideas instead of the current state of the world; everyone is trying to latch on to some imagined authority possessed by a bunch of dead people.

Everyone's treating voters/viewers like they're completely ignorant of history, confused by logical reasoning and incapable of critical thinking. Sure fear mongering, mud slinging, hyperbole and generally acting like an agitated chimpanzee can get you elected but it creates an environment where you can't do the job you're elected to do. We're not so far as we may think from ending up with 'leaders' chosen from some form of game show.

/It's got what plants crave
2012-02-26 09:35:00 PM
1 votes:
Gawdzila
xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.

[Citation needed]

Here ya go:
upload.wikimedia.org
2012-02-26 09:34:04 PM
1 votes:

Bevets: Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

The 'Wall of Separation' is sacred to Secular Fundamentalists and invisible in the constitution.


The phrase "wall of separation" is not invisible in the Constitution, because it is not in the Constitution! But, that is irrelevant because the "wall of separation" is still legally binding! The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled in favor of, as Thomas Jefferson put it, "a wall of separation between church and state."
2012-02-26 09:30:15 PM
1 votes:
i86.photobucket.com
2012-02-26 09:30:11 PM
1 votes:
Article VI of the Constitution establishes that ratified treaties, along with the Constitution itself, are the supreme law of the land. The relevant passage is as follows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article 11 if the first Treaty of Tripoli states, in relevant part:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,-and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

There is some manufactured controversy regarding this paragraph, as it does not appear in the Arabic version of the treaty. That said, it was the English version that was submitted to, and unanimously ratified by, the US Senate in 1797. As there were still non-zombie Founding Fathers(tm) available at the time, and as its publication in the newspapers of the era caused no great outcry, it can be inferred that the treaty and its contents were not controversial, that is, they were in line with the intent of the founding of the nation.

TL;DR - An explicit denial pf the idea of the US as a Christian nation appears in a document held to be a part of the supreme law of the land.
2012-02-26 09:28:35 PM
1 votes:

Johnny Swank: God damnit Republicans? Why are you so god damn retarded?

You "moderate" republican sheep can kiss my ass. You sat around with your collective thumbs up your asses for a generation while the biblethumpers took over the GOP and you didn't say a farking peep. Enjoy the ramifications.



this
2012-02-26 09:17:22 PM
1 votes:
Just more proof that the Republicans are intentionally throwing the election, just like in 2008 when they put You Know Who on the ticket as VP.

Or else the party really has completely lost its marbles.

I say 50/50 either way.

/used to be a Republican, until they went crazy
//now registered as Independent
2012-02-26 09:15:52 PM
1 votes:

Gawdzila: xl5150: Gawdzila: xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.

[Citation needed]


Citation? Sure, look around. It's called REALITY. I don't see them making Eid-al-Adha a national holiday. CHRISTmas, on the other hand....

Really? Having a holiday on Christmas means we have "Christian principles"? Even though Christmas is a celebration that was invented to aid in converting heathens and has absolutely no basis in the Bible or any other article of faith of religious import?

Lol. I hope you have something better than that.
What other of these apparently obvious pieces of reality am I missing that make your point so self-evident?


Gawdzilla is right. I don't remember the Constitution/God/State mandated fealty I was forced to grant that day. I do remember eating a bunch of pie, finding an old Fark redhead thread and falling asleep with an empty Magic Hat Circus Boy in my other hand.
2012-02-26 09:15:01 PM
1 votes:

Ow! That was my feelings!: [www.fishink.us image 640x480]


We've come to this: quoting Barry Goldwater in the name of compromise and reason.
2012-02-26 09:14:12 PM
1 votes:

Ambivalence: Ed Finnerty: xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.

You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that Christianity is a Pagan religion based on Pagan principles.

Actually, to be more accurate, it's a Pagan religion based on Buddhist principles.


More like a heretical offshoot of a religion based around a tribal deity. The Buddhist principles are a coincidence.
2012-02-26 09:13:05 PM
1 votes:

xl5150: Gawdzila: xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.

[Citation needed]


Citation? Sure, look around. It's called REALITY. I don't see them making Eid-al-Adha a national holiday. CHRISTmas, on the other hand....


Really? Having a holiday on Christmas means we have "Christian principles"? Even though Christmas is a celebration that was invented to aid in converting heathens and has absolutely no basis in the Bible or any other article of faith of religious import?

Lol. I hope you have something better than that.
What other of these apparently obvious pieces of reality am I missing that make your point so self-evident?
2012-02-26 09:12:54 PM
1 votes:

mamoru: If you actually believe the tripe frothy excrement you are spewing, then I think you may want to seek professional mental help.


FTFM. :D
2012-02-26 09:11:57 PM
1 votes:

StanTheMan: The First Amendment's Establishment Clause was not incorporated (applied to the states) until 1947!


That's only because of the boondoggle that was The Slaughter-House Cases. Really, it should have been incorporated against the States in 1868, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. Nope, but we had to wait until 2010 to have the Second Amendment incorporated against the States, all because Justice Miller had a goddamned brain-fart.
2012-02-26 09:08:19 PM
1 votes:

Sock Ruh Tease: Bevets: Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

The 'Wall of Separation' is sacred to Secular Fundamentalists and invisible in the constitution.

Do the arguments you create ever evolve?


They RE-volve, that's kind of close.
2012-02-26 09:05:40 PM
1 votes:

ib_thinkin: JRoo: The founders of America were fleeing state-sponsored religious persecution and wanted a nation where all their religions were was allowed.

If you're talking about the Pilgrims, the Colonies, or even the early States, FTFY (new window).

"In newly independent America, there was a crazy quilt of state laws regarding religion. In Massachusetts, only Christians were allowed to hold public office, and Catholics were allowed to do so only after renouncing papal authority. In 1777, New York State's constitution banned Catholics from public office (and would do so until 1806). In Maryland, Catholics had full civil rights, but Jews did not. Delaware required an oath affirming belief in the Trinity. Several states, including Massachusetts and South Carolina, had official, state-supported churches."


And that was a good thing in your opinion? I believe they also kept slaves and burned witches. Just as society's progress should not stop in the 5th century**, neither should it stop in 1776.

** or whenever that farking bullshiat they use to justify their bigotry was written down
2012-02-26 09:03:56 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers himself, coined the phrase 'separation of church and state'. it is demonstrably, quotably, VERIFIABLY the vision of the Founding Fathers that there SHOULD be a wall between religion and government. This cannot be any more clear - Jefferson himself wrote on this subject extensively, and his latters are extremely well documented and commented upon. Santorum is either a profoundly stupid man, or he's an exceptionally poor liar.


While you are right that Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers believed freedom of religion and "separation of church and state" were foundational principles for their newly created nation, that is not to say it was a universally held conviction among ALL founding fathers.

But, ultimately, it is the founding conviction that has stood the test of time.

It is disingenuous to say the "founding fathers" wanted one thing or another as if there was perfect accord among all the colonies. The truth is that then, as today, there was a very diverse range of viewpoints on a very wide range of topics.

It is also disingenuous to invoke the founding fathers as justification of one viewpoint over another as if the last 200+ years have seen no progress or expansion of liberties and movement towards equality. It is incredible that a major political party wants so dearly to go back 50, 100, 200 years to days that are long gone. How can we expect to live in, much less compete in, in a modern world where women are second class citizens? Where racial bigotry is justification for egregious civil rights violations? Where everyone is expected to revere Jesus Christ, but not even pretend to follow his teachings?

This is the 21st century. We cannot solve the problems of today by taking up the problems of yesteryear.
2012-02-26 09:03:36 PM
1 votes:

xl5150: Weaver95: you are either very poorly educated or deliberately lying.

I'd say the truly poorly educated are those who base the belief of their entire existence upon a THEORY.


I can see someone had a poor science education. I'd blame the teacher if it weren't for the other clear problems with your post. It appears you're a low quality student who's more than a tad resentful of it. Tell me, what caused your feeling of inadequacy? Did someone make fun of you? Did you not live up to your own expectations?
2012-02-26 09:03:02 PM
1 votes:

propasaurus: xl5150: Weaver95: you are either very poorly educated or deliberately lying.

I'd say the truly poorly educated are those who base the belief of their entire existence upon a THEORY.

Ah, troll it is.


he might just be poorly educated. lets wait and see what he (it?) does.
2012-02-26 09:01:39 PM
1 votes:

JWideman: meathome: Backwards Cornfield Races: Okay seriously, who paid this guy to say all this stuff. No one is literally this crazy, he must being getting paid by the obama camp to help their campaign

Oh no, this is not shilling. It's what he actually believes.

Even the GOP in PA got sick of his stuff after a year or two and promply tossed him out of office during the next election.

This. He thinks the entire US is like Butler, PA.


Butler, PA

*shudder*
2012-02-26 09:01:04 PM
1 votes:
cdn.crooksandliars.com
2012-02-26 09:00:28 PM
1 votes:

Sock Ruh Tease: Bevets: Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

The 'Wall of Separation' is sacred to Secular Fundamentalists and invisible in the constitution.

Do the arguments you create ever evolve?


his arguments were created by god, they don't evolve.
2012-02-26 09:00:11 PM
1 votes:

Bevets: The 'Wall of Separation' is sacred to Secular Fundamentalists and invisible in the constitution.


Well, there's this bit --

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (emphasis mine)
2012-02-26 08:58:49 PM
1 votes:

xl5150: Weaver95: you are either very poorly educated or deliberately lying.

I'd say the truly poorly educated are those who base the belief of their entire existence upon a THEORY.


i471.photobucket.com
2012-02-26 08:58:31 PM
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: [diplomatdc.files.wordpress.com image 500x305]


Oh Jesus. That's the first picture where you can see that creepy doll's eyes. It's staring right through my soul!!!
2012-02-26 08:57:33 PM
1 votes:

xl5150: Weaver95: you are either very poorly educated or deliberately lying.

I'd say the truly poorly educated are those who base the belief of their entire existence upon a THEORY.


A theory that can be scientifically analyzed, measured and studied, compared to belief in magic and supernatural beings? Just because you believe in God, Santa Claus and Peter Pan doesn't mean that you are right.
2012-02-26 08:54:54 PM
1 votes:

xl5150: Weaver95: you are either very poorly educated or deliberately lying.

I'd say the truly poorly educated are those who base the belief of their entire existence upon a THEORY.


you're right, a storybook is better. a storybook with NO pictures!
2012-02-26 08:54:15 PM
1 votes:
Santorum couldn't take the Oath of Office (if he got elected) without breaking a Commandment.
2012-02-26 08:53:04 PM
1 votes:

Aar1012: So Rick would be okay if an Islamic group decided to pray towards Mecca at the WTC site? He wouldn't called for the government to step in?


Makes me want to assemble all the Muslims I know to give it a try.
2012-02-26 08:50:23 PM
1 votes:

xl5150: You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.


Which is why it's firmly enshrined in our constitution that everyone has to be Christian or GTFO.

Right? What? No?

My fragile innocence is crushed.
2012-02-26 08:46:47 PM
1 votes:
I thought that it was the Republicans who were pissing their pants in fear of religious law taking over the US?
2012-02-26 08:43:28 PM
1 votes:

Kumana Wanalaia: Which unelectable mook will they nominate?

The sociopath who would arrest judges?
The robot who has no firm convictions?
The shiatty dumbass who wants to put God in Government?
The old wingnut?


They're all wonderful. I'm going to love this election season.
2012-02-26 08:42:02 PM
1 votes:

FlashHarry: i'm guessing he probably feels the same way about free speech and a few other american rights. after all, like the other members of the taliban, he "hates us for our freedoms."


I'll bet Santorum also feels sick whenever he sees pagans walking around, not being tied to stakes & set on fire. Insensitive bastards! Can they not see how their blatant non-combustion is making this man ill??
2012-02-26 08:38:58 PM
1 votes:
If the voters ever really get a taste of Santorum they will all throw up.
2012-02-26 08:38:14 PM
1 votes:
Santorum makes me want to throw up, too.
2012-02-26 08:34:32 PM
1 votes:

Backwards Cornfield Races: Okay seriously, who paid this guy to say all this stuff. No one is literally this crazy, he must being getting paid by the obama camp to help their campaign


Oh no, this is not shilling. It's what he actually believes.

Even the GOP in PA got sick of his stuff after a year or two and promply tossed him out of office during the next election.
2012-02-26 08:32:16 PM
1 votes:
You can deny it all you want and try to be as pedantic as you can possibly get, but the truth is that the US is a Christian nation based on Christian principles.
2012-02-26 08:32:03 PM
1 votes:
Santorum makes me want to throw up. Surging Santorum makes me want to throw up even more.
2012-02-26 08:29:32 PM
1 votes:

Bevets: The 'Wall of Separation' is sacred to Secular Fundamentalists and invisible in the constitution.


Aww, crap, where the fark did I leave my Troll-Be-Gone?
2012-02-26 08:25:57 PM
1 votes:
Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

The 'Wall of Separation' is sacred to Secular Fundamentalists and invisible in the constitution.
2012-02-26 08:01:52 PM
1 votes:

weave: "This is the First Amendment. The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion. That means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square."


I'd normally be inclined to agree with this but I know damn well he doesn't want any of those wrong-faith-Muslim people in that square.


I would disagree with his statement completely. Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. If I choose not to believe, thats my right too. He apparently thinks the non-believers should be brought into the public square too. fark him and his creepy family.
2012-02-26 07:58:57 PM
1 votes:
FTA: The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country...to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up.

Oh, for fark's sake. I don't know who I hate more: Rick Santorum for conflating "people of faith" and the "church," or a douchebag of a quote-snipper for falsely portraying him as such.

Whichever one it is, I want much pain and suffering to befall them and their smug little face.
2012-02-26 07:57:05 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: I would go with a more simple angle of 'Rick Santorum hates the Founding Fathers and the Constitution' but whatever.


Wait, are you talking about the guys who founded the country, or the Founding Fathers© , who seem to be these mythical beings that always agree with whatever the Republicans say.

You know, kind of like Jesus vs. Jeezus.
2012-02-26 07:54:36 PM
1 votes:
Rick, if you'd have given into the truth long ago, you might have learned to suppress that gag reflex.
 
Displayed 206 of 206 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report