DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: rumborak on February 26, 2012, 08:21:49 PM
-
https://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-26/santorum-says-separation-of-church-and-state-isn-t-absolute.html
Theocracy here we come...
rumborak
-
Fuck Santorum. I hate everything that man stands for.
-
There are plenty of good reasons to keep church theology out of politics. That said the constitution isn't one of them. The first amendment was to ensure the US didn't adopt a church or churches because of how many people were escaping those types of situations to come to America.
-
He is the only candidate that genuinely creeps me out.
-
I seriously don't understand how he's gotten as far as he has. The guy is fucking insane.
-
He's way too polarizing. He's been riding the wave over the past few weeks, but Romney will still get the GOP nod.
-J
-
:lol
-
I'm not saying there aren't plenty of reasons to dislike Santorum, but is this particular issue that egregious? I'm all for the separation of church having authority over the state and vice versa, but I don't think that's what Santorum is addressing. Rather, he's making an observation that faith has become absent in politics entirely.
I'm sure most of you know that the same Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase "separation of church and state" was the same Jefferson who attended church services in the House of Representatives (which were non-discriminatory and voluntary). As far as I read the Constitution, as long as the state does not enact a law that prohibits the free exercise of ANY religion, it's individual members should not be prohibited from sharing their faith in public.
It makes no difference to me whether someone says their values are based on the Quran, the Bible, or the Doctrine of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Let them share whatever beliefs they want, I don't care. In the end, the voting public still decides whether to hand over (or take away) the power.
-
Rather, he's making an observation that faith has become absent in politics entirely.
It's a false observation. Between his Catholicism, Romney's Mormonism, Obama's supposedly being a closet Muslim, and the general focus on the religious right since we are in GOP primary season, religion has become ever-present lately.
-
Santorum's idea of "church" needs to stay out of everything.
-
If Santorum somehow gets the GOP nomination I will actively campaign for Barack Obama. I will go door-to-door because there's no way that Santorum could possibly be an improvement.
-
The longer this guy gets in front of the country and runs his mouth, the more ridiculous he gets. I'm starting to believe he's being paid by Obama supporters to say all this stuff. He's flat out writing his opponents' attack ads FOR them. It is beyond my ability to comprehend how somebody would say the things he's been saying and hope to actually get elected.
-
Way more disturbing are the people who apparently see Romney's Mormonism a greater affront than Santorum theocratic musings.
rumborak
-
The longer this guy gets in front of the country and runs his mouth, the more ridiculous he gets. I'm starting to believe he's being paid by Obama supporters to say all this stuff. He's flat out writing his opponents' attack ads FOR them. It is beyond my ability to comprehend how somebody would say the things he's been saying and hope to actually get elected.
He can say anything he want and the people who share his beliefs will still vote for him. It disgusts me how much an intangible deity can influence people's decisions when it comes to our tangible world.
-
Preface to the question: I can't stand Santorum. I am in no way, shape, or form defending him.
Question:
Why is it okay that some of these posts are "he's fucking insane" and "Fuck Santorum"? I'm not taking a shot at the posters in general (you're all great posters) but these feel a little out of place for a forum like this. I like to read these threads (and occasionally post) because the quality of posting tends to be better. rumborak brought up a good topic and a few posts just brought a potential discussion down in a click of a button. As much as I can't stand Obama/Democrats in general, I try to at least not to post "Fuck Obama" and "he's a fucking Socialist" regardless of what I actually think.
On topic:
As a conservative, Santorum scares me as a candidate. My heart and gut is conservative, but my mind knows reality is more moderate.
-
To actually quote the article, here is what he said:
“I don’t believe that the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said in an interview today on ABC’s “This Week” program. “The First Amendment means the free exercise of religion and that means bringing people and their faith into the public square.”
Santorum, 53, made the comments in an interview from Michigan, where he is campaigning ahead of the Republican primary this week. Polls show a close race there against Mitt Romney who spent his boyhood in the state and where his father, George Romney, served as governor and an automobile company chief executive officer.
Santorum said Kennedy’s 1960 speech in Houston about the separation of church and state, was an “absolutist doctrine” that he disagrees with.
“To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? What makes me throw up is someone who is now trying to tell people that you will do what the government says,” Santorum said. “That now we’re going to turn around and impose our values from the government on people of faith.”
Santorum said “there are people I disagree with. Come into our town hall meetings and let’s have a discussion. Air your ideas and why you believe what you believe.”
“That’s what America is all about -- bringing in that diversity,” the former Pennsylvania senator said. “What we saw in Kennedy’s speech was just the opposite and that’s what’s so upsetting about it.”
I find nothing wrong with any of that whatsoever.
-
And this:
Question:
Why is it okay that some of these posts are "he's fucking insane" and "Fuck Santorum"? I'm not taking a shot at the posters in general (you're all great posters) but these feel a little out of place for a forum like this. I like to read these threads (and occasionally post) because the quality of posting tends to be better.
-
Maybe I'm way off, but I feel like "freedom of religion" includes the notion of freedom from religion. I do not at all agree with Santorum's viewpoint on some things, as much right as he has to believe them. The thought that he or anybody else may want to make it so that their beliefs become law is scary.
-
The thought that he or anybody else may want to make it so that their beliefs become law is scary.
And that is precisely why I actually quoted the article in this thread, because he says nothing of the sort. And he has said in other contexts that he specifically does NOT believe it is right to legislate that way. He strongly believes it is appropriate for people, whether in government or not, to be able to openly have discourse about what they believe, but not that those beliefs should necessarily be legislated. That is a subtle, yet very important distinction.
-
To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up and it should make every American…Now we’re going to turn around and say we’re going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square.
I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. 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. 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. Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, no, ‘faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate.’ Go on and read the speech ‘I will have nothing to do with faith. I won’t consult with people of faith.’ It was an absolutist doctrine that was foreign at the time of 1960.
"Only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case"? What the actual fuck is he even talking about?
Here's what Kennedy actually said
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.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
What exactly is wrong with this?
-
Why is it not enough for public leaders to simply be internally lead by their religious beliefs? By openly discussing them as a leader, you are inevitably favoring your particular religion. I can only mention that if a Muslim politician had made the same statement in this country, there would be battle cries across the nations from Christians.
rumborak
-
Why is it not enough for public leaders to simply be internally lead by their religious beliefs? By openly discussing them as a leader, you are inevitably favoring your particular religion. I can only mention that if a Muslim politician had made the same statement in this country, there would be battle cries across the nations from Christians.
rumborak
You're absolutely right. I can't really add to that. But, you're right.
-
And that is precisely why I actually quoted the article in this thread, because he says nothing of the sort.
I didn't mean to indicate that I actually thought he'd said that. Just outing my thoughts on the idea. Undoubtedly there are some who would have no issues with mandating their beliefs. Some would argue that the gay marriage ban falls into that category, though that's a discussion for a different thread.
Also, if Santorum is so keen on the free expression of religious groups, I truly do wonder what would happen if an Islamic group chose to have a big meeting to pray towards Mecca. Within 1 mile of the WTC. I question what his stance would be, out of genuine curiosity. If he denounced it, it would certain come across as kind of hypocritical, but if he didn't, then there's the possibility of losing some favor with his party.
EDIT: Kinda in the same ball park as what rumborak said, I guess.
-
I think one must be almost dense to not see that Santorum is plain trying to establish two tiers of religion, the "American" one (Christianity) and the non-American one.
rumborak
-
I would never vote for him, but I give him credit for one thing: I know what he believes in and stands for, and think he truly believes in what he says. I can’t say that about many politicians. People like Newt say some pretty wacky things, but I never know if they actually believe them, or are just saying them for the benefit of his particular audience at the time.
-
I can see that, but the opposite argument could be made that he simply mis-estimates what the public wants to hear.
rumborak
-
And besides, I remember hearing from multiple sources that he was a terribly corrupt senator. Also, if you actually read that JFK quote, what Santorum said about it was a blatant misrepresentation.
-
if you actually read that JFK quote, what Santorum said about it was a blatant misrepresentation.
This, what a goof.
-
I think both sides need to just take a deep breath. Santorum says a lot of stuff that's really off the cuff, shooting from the hip, and let's all remember this is the Republican primaries right now. He and everyone else running on the right is playing to the base of the Republican party. The Republicans are going to nominate Romney. And he'll give Obama a pretty decent challenge. Santorum would lose in a landslide and my friends on the conservative side of the aisle, I suspect, know this deep down.
-
Way more disturbing are the people who apparently see Romney's Mormonism a greater affront than Santorum theocratic musings.
rumborak
Amen (pun intended) to this! It makes no sense to me what a persons type of religion an elected official is. I care about his body of work.
-
Way more disturbing are the people who apparently see Romney's Mormonism a greater affront than Santorum theocratic musings.
rumborak
Amen (pun intended) to this! It makes no sense to me what a persons type of religion an elected official is. I care about his body of work.
This. Even as an athiest, I could care less what the person running believes in, as long as they don't show people who believe what they do favoritism or belittle beliefs other than their own. I do have a problem however when a candidate's beliefs get in the way of cold hard truth. For example, Santorum's views on contraceptives and abstinence. He thinks that getting rid of contraceptives and focussing more on abstinence is what is needed to prevent teen pregnancy. Looking at a human being as a product of nature and evolution, and not as a special product of a god, will make you realize how wrong his views on the matter are. Out of all of our instincts, the one that drives us the most is the urge to reproduce. He is trying to surpress millions of years of evolution that have told us to do one thing, and one thing only, fuck. I'm not saying abstinence is bullshit, what I'm saying is that they way country seems to approach is way off of what is today's reality. We should be teaching kids as young as 7 about the male and female bodies, and explain how sex and getting pregnant works. I don't see what the big deal about exposing young children to that is. At least that way, once teens begin to hit puberty, they will be educated. And while they will probably still have sex, maybe they will be more respectful when it comes to the power it holds. Hopefully they'd be more wise and make better decisions when doing the act. The big difference I see between Obama and the current republican candidates, is that Obama seems in touch with how the world is today, as opposed to MR, NG, and RS who's mentallity seems to still be in the 1950's. The world is a different place than is was then, and it's time we make changes to the way we teach youngsters and how we handle current trends in every day life.
Santorum's comment today was one of the worst things I have heard so far in this race. "We went into a recession in 2008 because of gasoline prices. The bubble burst in housing because people couldn't pay their mortgages because they were looking at $4 a gallon gasoline." His failure to come out and say anything about the banks being irresponsible, lack of government regulation, or the greed of a handful of people, just proves what a moron the guy really is. I understand gas prices are a hot topic right now, but using them in this light just makes him look like a fucking retard.
-
This. Even as an athiest, I could care less what the person running believes in, as long as they don't show people who believe what they do favoritism or belittle beliefs other than their own. I do have a problem however when a candidate's beliefs get in the way of cold hard truth. For example, Santorum's views on contraceptives and abstinence. He thinks that getting rid of contraceptives and focussing more on abstinence is what is needed to prevent teen pregnancy. Looking at a human being as a product of nature and evolution, and not as a special product of a god, will make you realize how wrong his views on the matter are.
Just pointing out a logical inconsistency. His views are different than yours, but that doesn't mean he's "wrong". If you won't vote for someone because he has different beliefs, more power to you, but I think it's all too easy (and counterproductive) to play the right vs. wrong game.
-
YOUR WRONG!
-
YOUR WRONG!
His wrong what?
-
YOUR YOU'RE WRONG!
Just pointing out a grammatical inconsistency.
:loser:
-
You people need to stop forcing your views on spelling and grammar on other people.
-
You people need to stop forcing your views on spelling and grammar on other people.
....what do you mean "you people"?
-
YOUR YOU'RE WRONG!
Just pointing out a grammatical inconsistency.
NO U!
(and, yes, the original error was intentional; I did not accidentally it)
-
It = the whole thing?
-
:rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js3BYcHmBhE
-
That's one of the best BLRs I've seen.
-
I'm not saying there aren't plenty of reasons to dislike Santorum, but is this particular issue that egregious? I'm all for the separation of church having authority over the state and vice versa, but I don't think that's what Santorum is addressing. Rather, he's making an observation that faith has become absent in politics entirely.
What business does faith have in politics anyway?
-
I'm not saying there aren't plenty of reasons to dislike Santorum, but is this particular issue that egregious? I'm all for the separation of church having authority over the state and vice versa, but I don't think that's what Santorum is addressing. Rather, he's making an observation that faith has become absent in politics entirely.
What business does faith have in politics anyway?
The fact that people will vote for you becuase you have it.
2:25 mark - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHVGgMAJAK4
-
Well, I can say that I vote for someone based on faith for a reason. My faith is my guiding compass. It's what I believe and how I ought to make my decisions. Sure I mess up, but, to me, it always points north. So, if there is a candidate who truly believes what I do (Mike Huckabee in '08 for example) I want to give them my vote. I know what guides me might also guide them. You know, in regards to decision making, not just things like abortion and social issues.
I hope that makes sense.
-
Well, I can say that I vote for someone based on faith for a reason. My faith is my guiding compass. It's what I believe and how I ought to make my decisions. Sure I mess up, but, to me, it always points north. So, if there is a candidate who truly believes what I do (Mike Huckabee in '08 for example) I want to give them my vote. I know what guides me might also guide them. You know, in regards to decision making, not just things like abortion and social issues.
I hope that makes sense.
If someone had your faith but said we should do away with welfare, get rid of EPA standards, and wanted to send double the troops that were there back over seas, would you still vote for them?
-
There is a line. Of those three, the welfare is the only one that I'd disagree with. Not that I'm in agreement with the other two, but I don't disagree. Welfare serves a purpose.
I'm pretty sure Santorum and I believe in the same God and have the same beliefs. But, we look through it with a different lens. I'd rather vote for Romney.
-
This. Even as an athiest, I could care less what the person running believes in, as long as they don't show people who believe what they do favoritism or belittle beliefs other than their own. I do have a problem however when a candidate's beliefs get in the way of cold hard truth. For example, Santorum's views on contraceptives and abstinence. He thinks that getting rid of contraceptives and focussing more on abstinence is what is needed to prevent teen pregnancy. Looking at a human being as a product of nature and evolution, and not as a special product of a god, will make you realize how wrong his views on the matter are.
Just pointing out a logical inconsistency. His views are different than yours, but that doesn't mean he's "wrong". If you won't vote for someone because he has different beliefs, more power to you, but I think it's all too easy (and counterproductive) to play the right vs. wrong game.
Well, actually, when it comes to abstinence v contraception, he could not possibly be more wrong. It's pretty much an unmitigated fact, backed up by actual raw data and statistics (https://www.openeducation.net/2009/01/05/abstinence-only-sex-education-statistics-final-nail-in-the-coffin/), that abstinence-only programs are completely ineffective. Yet, Santorum continues to blow this right-wing dog whistle about it because -as anyone with even a tiny fraction of a clue understands- he's playing to a constituency that doesn't want to hear any facts on this. Because those facts fly directly in the face of their worldview.
-
The idea that faith makes for better people is one of the biggest myths out there.
rumborak
-
The idea that faith makes for better people is one of the biggest myths out there.
rumborak
Not all people, but I can say that faith has transformed my life for the better.
-
The idea that faith makes for better people is one of the biggest myths out there.
rumborak
I don't think better at all. If my faith is true, and theirs too, I can relate to their decision making process. I can connect to the candidate more, I guess.
-
This. Even as an athiest, I could care less what the person running believes in, as long as they don't show people who believe what they do favoritism or belittle beliefs other than their own. I do have a problem however when a candidate's beliefs get in the way of cold hard truth. For example, Santorum's views on contraceptives and abstinence. He thinks that getting rid of contraceptives and focussing more on abstinence is what is needed to prevent teen pregnancy. Looking at a human being as a product of nature and evolution, and not as a special product of a god, will make you realize how wrong his views on the matter are.
Just pointing out a logical inconsistency. His views are different than yours, but that doesn't mean he's "wrong". If you won't vote for someone because he has different beliefs, more power to you, but I think it's all too easy (and counterproductive) to play the right vs. wrong game.
I'm not targeting his faith. I'm targeting his views on sex because of his faith.
-
I'm not saying there aren't plenty of reasons to dislike Santorum, but is this particular issue that egregious? I'm all for the separation of church having authority over the state and vice versa, but I don't think that's what Santorum is addressing. Rather, he's making an observation that faith has become absent in politics entirely.
What business does faith have in politics anyway?
I would turn the question around and ask what business someone without faith has trying to hold him/herself out as being able to properly represent a nation of people, the majority of which claim to have one faith or the other?
But the answer to your question is not difficult, although it may be difficult to understand for one who has no faith. Faith should permeate one's life. It isn't something you can draw fences around and allow to influence one part of your life and not others. So as far as what business faith has in politics, for the politician who has faith, it has every business in politics.
-
And for the millions of consituents with no faith, it has no business being part of it. Everyone's right and everyone's wrong. Clearly no way to make everyone happy on an issue like this.
-
I'm not saying there aren't plenty of reasons to dislike Santorum, but is this particular issue that egregious? I'm all for the separation of church having authority over the state and vice versa, but I don't think that's what Santorum is addressing. Rather, he's making an observation that faith has become absent in politics entirely.
What business does faith have in politics anyway?
Faith should permeate one's life. It isn't something you can draw fences around and allow to influence one part of your life and not others. So as far as what business faith has in politics, for the politician who has faith, it has every business in politics.
I have to respectfully disagree with this. Everyone should act on good morals regardless of what faith they have or lack. As Penn Jillette said... "My feeling about morality is that if you're doing what you're doing for reward and punishment, it's not really morality. When I'm raising my children, my job is to get my children to act in ways that are moral when there is no fear and no reward, but to do it for the sake of doing it. When you add ever lasting life as a reward, and everlasting tourment as the punishment, there can be no morality. We need to treat each other well because we love each other."
-
I would turn the question around and ask what business someone without faith has trying to hold him/herself out as being able to properly represent a nation of people, the majority of which claim to have one faith or the other?
I take it they need to be white too then? What business does Obama have representing this nation?
rumborak
-
And for the millions of consituents with no faith, it has no business being part of it. Everyone's right and everyone's wrong. Clearly no way to make everyone happy on an issue like this.
Happiness aside, there is a way to get along and be civilized about it, and that is for each side to stop vilifying the other for thinking differently and just let it be.
I'm not saying there aren't plenty of reasons to dislike Santorum, but is this particular issue that egregious? I'm all for the separation of church having authority over the state and vice versa, but I don't think that's what Santorum is addressing. Rather, he's making an observation that faith has become absent in politics entirely.
What business does faith have in politics anyway?
Faith should permeate one's life. It isn't something you can draw fences around and allow to influence one part of your life and not others. So as far as what business faith has in politics, for the politician who has faith, it has every business in politics.
I have to respectfully disagree with this. Everyone should act on good morals regardless of what faith they have or lack. As Penn Jillette said... "My feeling about reality is that if you're doing what you're doing for reward and punishment, it's not really reality. When I'm raising my childre, my job is to get my children to act in ways that are moral when there is no fear and no reward, but to do it for the sake of doing it. When you add ever lasting life as a reward, and everlasting tourment as the punishment, there can be no morality. We need to treat each other well because we love each other."
Penn sometimes says some really intelligent things. He also sometimes says some really stupid things. While he is correct about treating each other well because we love each other, that is not mutually exclusive with treating each other well because there may be positive and/or negative consequences for how we treat each other.
I would turn the question around and ask what business someone without faith has trying to hold him/herself out as being able to properly represent a nation of people, the majority of which claim to have one faith or the other?
I take it they need to be white too then? What business does Obama have representing this nation?
rumborak
??? That makes no sense whatsoever.
-
Obama is black. Blacks are a minority in the US. What business does a black person have representing the people of the United States when the majority is white?
rumborak
-
Penn sometimes says some really intelligent things. He also sometimes says some really stupid things. While he is correct about treating each other well because we love each other, that is not mutually exclusive with treating each other well because there may be positive and/or negative consequences for how we treat each other.
I quoted that wrong. The two instances of the word 'reality' should say 'morailty'.
-
And for the millions of consituents with no faith, it has no business being part of it. Everyone's right and everyone's wrong. Clearly no way to make everyone happy on an issue like this.
Happiness aside, there is a way to get along and be civilized about it, and that is for each side to stop vilifying the other for thinking differently and just let it be.
If only it were that easy. Unfortunately, I don't foresee a day where that will ever be a realistic possibility.
-
I unsterstand what Rumbo was saying.
-
And for the millions of consituents with no faith, it has no business being part of it. Everyone's right and everyone's wrong. Clearly no way to make everyone happy on an issue like this.
Happiness aside, there is a way to get along and be civilized about it, and that is for each side to stop vilifying the other for thinking differently and just let it be.
If only it were that easy. Unfortunately, I don't foresee a day where that will ever be a realistic possibility.
Well, the nastiness and aggression of the GOP campaign is definitely backfiring on the candidates. Whoever the candidate is, they will need to dig themselves out of that hole.
rumborak
-
I'm not saying there aren't plenty of reasons to dislike Santorum, but is this particular issue that egregious? I'm all for the separation of church having authority over the state and vice versa, but I don't think that's what Santorum is addressing. Rather, he's making an observation that faith has become absent in politics entirely.
What business does faith have in politics anyway?
I would turn the question around and ask what business someone without faith has trying to hold him/herself out as being able to properly represent a nation of people, the majority of which claim to have one faith or the other?
In a country of many faiths, wouldn't a nation be better represented by someone who wasn't biased (for lack of a better term) towards one particular religion or its beliefs? I would think neutrality towards any particular faith or defined belief system would be a strength.
-
And for the millions of consituents with no faith, it has no business being part of it. Everyone's right and everyone's wrong. Clearly no way to make everyone happy on an issue like this.
And I'd like to add to that that a politician that subscribes to and promotes one single faith or form of faith over another has no business doing so in politics considering we live in a nation composed of a plurality of different religious views, and unless the politician in question can embrace that plurality rather than preaching conformity, faith has no business in politics.
Edit: Ninja'd by Blob. Dammit Blob! :lol
-
And for the millions of consituents with no faith, it has no business being part of it. Everyone's right and everyone's wrong. Clearly no way to make everyone happy on an issue like this.
Happiness aside, there is a way to get along and be civilized about it, and that is for each side to stop vilifying the other for thinking differently and just let it be.
If only it were that easy. Unfortunately, I don't foresee a day where that will ever be a realistic possibility.
Well, the nastiness and aggression of the GOP campaign is definitely backfiring on the candidates. Whoever the candidate is, they will need to dig themselves out of that hole.
rumborak
I don't think it's possible. Even if the nominee begins to get out of the hole, I guarantee that Obama is just going to dig it deeper once they go head-to-head. I'm sure Obama is just itching to call these guys out on all the shit that has been spewing out of their mouths for the last six months.
-
And for the millions of consituents with no faith, it has no business being part of it. Everyone's right and everyone's wrong. Clearly no way to make everyone happy on an issue like this.
And I'd like to add to that that a politician that subscribes to and promotes one single faith or form of faith over another has no business doing so in politics considering we live in a nation composed of a plurality of different religious views, and unless the politician in question can embrace that plurality rather than preaching conformity, faith has no business in politics.
Edit: Ninja'd by Blob. Dammit Blob! :lol
This, as well as what Blob said. I have always thought an atheist who was accepting of all religious beliefs who do a much better job that someone with one set of beliefs.
-
I'm not saying there aren't plenty of reasons to dislike Santorum, but is this particular issue that egregious? I'm all for the separation of church having authority over the state and vice versa, but I don't think that's what Santorum is addressing. Rather, he's making an observation that faith has become absent in politics entirely.
What business does faith have in politics anyway?
The fact that people will vote for you becuase you have it.
2:25 mark - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHVGgMAJAK4
I love you. I have never seen that video before, and it is amazingly spot-on.
-
I think all of this talk about faith in politics is overblown right now because Rick Santorum says a lot of really dumb shit. Look, I'm a registered Democrat and pretty much a liberal tree-hugger. That's just who I am. I've lived through many presidents, but haven't really been involved or paid attention to politics until around the time that Reagan won reelection. Bill Clinton, who for all of his faults was still a president who presided over the biggest economic expansion in history, was a person of faith. And even though he did some pretty dumb shit I thought he was a good president and didn't really care about his religion, mostly because he didn't wear it on his sleeve, but also because I agreed with his policies. So there was no reason for me to point fingers at his faith and claim that it was a problem.
Along comes George W. Bush. A guy who I vehemently disagree with across the board on policy. And suddenly, the temptation to lay the blame for my hatred of him and his crappy policies at the feet of his stated religious beliefs was pretty strong. But the fact is he is just a guy who had different political views than Bill Clinton and implemented policies I found repugnant in comparison to most of Clinton's policies and at the end of the day they were both still people of faith. One I agreed with and one I did not disagree with.
I think a lot of people get very uptight about this religion angle when the person being discussed is someone they disagree with and it's almost like a argument by proxy. It doesn't help when you have morons like Rick Santorum saying that church/state separation make him "want to throw up." But come on people, every president that anyone reading this has lived to know has been a person who goes to church. A person of faith. It's just that now you have a guy out there making some very provocative statements in an effort to whip up support from a relatively small segment of society and everyone's freaking out about it.
We're not going to get an avowed atheist president any time soon in the United States of America. That's just a fact of life. The best we can hope for is a person who will make good decisions based simply on what is best for the country. Nothing more, nothing less. If they want to believe what's written in the bible, that's on them. All I care about is that they make good decisions that help our country. I don't really care all that much if their decisions are informed in part by their faith. I didn't care about it when Bill Clinton was president, so I'm not going to be a hypocrite and make it a big issue if Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum or Obama for that matter are our president. To me, this is just a distraction.
Yes, people vote because they believe candidates share their faith. If you're a democrat like me and you think Obama didn't get a large swath of votes because of his faith then you are deluding yourself.
-
^Good post.
-
And for the millions of consituents with no faith, it has no business being part of it. Everyone's right and everyone's wrong. Clearly no way to make everyone happy on an issue like this.
Happiness aside, there is a way to get along and be civilized about it, and that is for each side to stop vilifying the other for thinking differently and just let it be.
No offense, but it's hard to get all warm and fuzzy over this post when you've made it pretty clear in the past that you don't think atheists should be able to hold public office at all. Especially the part about not "vilifying" the others, when you believe that belief in a God is completely incompatible with any kind of immorality which inversely means that you believe the only people who are capable of any kind of immorality are those without a belief in God (or atheists).
I agree 100% with what you just said, but I can't really get much sense of good will from it when also considering what you've said in past discussions about people with/without faith. Unless you've changed your stance since those previous posts, in which case :heart
-
I think you're exaggerating what I previously posted.
-
I looked over that thread before making my post to be sure I didn't misconstrue what you said. Your exact posts were " And by definition, belief in God does not allow for immorality or amorality." and "I just don't think those laws [preventing atheists from holding public office] are a bad idea. Not sure what else I can say about that. They would probably be considered unconstitutional under modern First Amendment jurisprudence, but still not a bad idea at all."
I don't think I was exaggerating those statements, but if I am please point out how.
-
Yes, but spit-balling about hypotheticals and stating my belief that faith provides a stronger moral foundation does not necessarily equate to "atheists should not be able to hold public office." Sorry if my prior opinions were stated so strongly that they may have given that impression.
-
Ok :heart
-
In my personal experience, faith has provided me with a stronger moral foundation than when I was a nonbeliever. But, I don't know if that is true for everybody. I think some politicians use faith as a election tool instead of truly living by the moral system that faith portrays. It comes down to what, as voters, we believe to be true and what we can see right through in a politician.
-
I think all of this talk about faith in politics is overblown right now because Rick Santorum says a lot of really dumb shit. Look, I'm a registered Democrat and pretty much a liberal tree-hugger. That's just who I am. I've lived through many presidents, but haven't really been involved or paid attention to politics until around the time that Reagan won reelection. Bill Clinton, who for all of his faults was still a president who presided over the biggest economic expansion in history, was a person of faith. And even though he did some pretty dumb shit I thought he was a good president and didn't really care about his religion, mostly because he didn't wear it on his sleeve, but also because I agreed with his policies. So there was no reason for me to point fingers at his faith and claim that it was a problem.
Along comes George W. Bush. A guy who I vehemently disagree with across the board on policy. And suddenly, the temptation to lay the blame for my hatred of him and his crappy policies at the feet of his stated religious beliefs was pretty strong. But the fact is he is just a guy who had different political views than Bill Clinton and implemented policies I found repugnant in comparison to most of Clinton's policies and at the end of the day they were both still people of faith. One I agreed with and one I did not disagree with.
I think a lot of people get very uptight about this religion angle when the person being discussed is someone they disagree with and it's almost like a argument by proxy. It doesn't help when you have morons like Rick Santorum saying that church/state separation make him "want to throw up." But come on people, every president that anyone reading this has lived to know has been a person who goes to church. A person of faith. It's just that now you have a guy out there making some very provocative statements in an effort to whip up support from a relatively small segment of society and everyone's freaking out about it.
We're not going to get an avowed atheist president any time soon in the United States of America. That's just a fact of life. The best we can hope for is a person who will make good decisions based simply on what is best for the country. Nothing more, nothing less. If they want to believe what's written in the bible, that's on them. All I care about is that they make good decisions that help our country. I don't really care all that much if their decisions are informed in part by their faith. I didn't care about it when Bill Clinton was president, so I'm not going to be a hypocrite and make it a big issue if Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum or Obama for that matter are our president. To me, this is just a distraction.
Yes, people vote because they believe candidates share their faith. If you're a democrat like me and you think Obama didn't get a large swath of votes because of his faith then you are deluding yourself.
First off, just let me say, this was a fantastic post. I for one don't have a problem with a candidate having faith, if that were the case I'd have to hate every president in history. The problem I have is, when they believe so strongly in their faith, that they assume god to be an answer to solving a lot of the country's problems, not the people within it.
Even though he is out of the race, I am going to use Rick Perry as an example. He had that day of prayer not too long ago in that football stadium. He said infront of the whole nation "Right now, America is in crisis, we have been besieged by financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters. As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy". To me this is nothing more than wishful thinking, not problem solving. Jesus didn't give us these freedoms, early American's greed and disregard for others is what put us on top, followed by the millions of people who have died in this country's name to keep us there. We can't just ask god to fix it and call it a day. We need to understand the world and the people within it, develop short and long term strategies, and assume that there is no help coming from god.
Some quotes from people at the event.
"I would vote for him. I would vote for him out of all the Republican candidates. He is not afraid to say this is a problem and this is how to fix it. Obama is not a leader"
and
"America was in decline economically and morally, and losing its influence abroad. The nation that forgets God is turned into hell. said. God had promised that through prayer this could be reversed, healing the land"
I'm all for people praying. But the thought that people think these are the means of fixing this country baffles me. Wouldn't God have prevented it from happening in the first place? What makes us so special? This event took place just after that massive Quake hit Japan. Isn't it selfish to think that we deserve attention and help due to our terrible decissions over the millions of people now homeless due to a natural dissaster? I just feel like having too much faith can be a bad thing, especially in politics. Guiding a country not by logic, but by hope just seems very irresponsible to me. This is why voting based on faith scares me. People don't know about real issues, or real solutions.
-
I think it's worth pointing out that the recent president who pounded the most on religion and his faith guiding him (GWB) made the shoddiest decisions. If anything, the conclusion has to be that Jesus doesn't like the US.
rumborak
-
Ok :heart
hey, this is your first warning.
this is p/r.
this is not a place of :heart but a place of >:(
you have been warned
-
I think it's worth pointing out that the recent president who pounded the most on religion and his faith guiding him (GWB) made the shoddiest decisions. If anything, the conclusion has to be that Jesus doesn't like the US.
rumborak
"He prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn anything from it" - Bill Maher
-
I think all of this talk about faith in politics is overblown right now because Rick Santorum says a lot of really dumb shit. Look, I'm a registered Democrat and pretty much a liberal tree-hugger. That's just who I am. I've lived through many presidents, but haven't really been involved or paid attention to politics until around the time that Reagan won reelection. Bill Clinton, who for all of his faults was still a president who presided over the biggest economic expansion in history, was a person of faith. And even though he did some pretty dumb shit I thought he was a good president and didn't really care about his religion, mostly because he didn't wear it on his sleeve, but also because I agreed with his policies. So there was no reason for me to point fingers at his faith and claim that it was a problem.
Along comes George W. Bush. A guy who I vehemently disagree with across the board on policy. And suddenly, the temptation to lay the blame for my hatred of him and his crappy policies at the feet of his stated religious beliefs was pretty strong. But the fact is he is just a guy who had different political views than Bill Clinton and implemented policies I found repugnant in comparison to most of Clinton's policies and at the end of the day they were both still people of faith. One I agreed with and one I did not disagree with.
I think a lot of people get very uptight about this religion angle when the person being discussed is someone they disagree with and it's almost like a argument by proxy. It doesn't help when you have morons like Rick Santorum saying that church/state separation make him "want to throw up." But come on people, every president that anyone reading this has lived to know has been a person who goes to church. A person of faith. It's just that now you have a guy out there making some very provocative statements in an effort to whip up support from a relatively small segment of society and everyone's freaking out about it.
We're not going to get an avowed atheist president any time soon in the United States of America. That's just a fact of life. The best we can hope for is a person who will make good decisions based simply on what is best for the country. Nothing more, nothing less. If they want to believe what's written in the bible, that's on them. All I care about is that they make good decisions that help our country. I don't really care all that much if their decisions are informed in part by their faith. I didn't care about it when Bill Clinton was president, so I'm not going to be a hypocrite and make it a big issue if Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum or Obama for that matter are our president. To me, this is just a distraction.
Yes, people vote because they believe candidates share their faith. If you're a democrat like me and you think Obama didn't get a large swath of votes because of his faith then you are deluding yourself.
First off, just let me say, this was a fantastic post. I for one don't have a problem with a candidate having faith, if that were the case I'd have to hate every president in history. The problem I have is, when they believe so strongly in their faith, that they assume god to be an answer to solving a lot of the country's problems, not the people within it.
Even though he is out of the race, I am going to use Rick Perry as an example. He had that day of prayer not too long ago in that football stadium. He said infront of the whole nation "Right now, America is in crisis, we have been besieged by financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters. As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy". To me this is nothing more than wishful thinking, not problem solving. Jesus didn't give us these freedoms, early American's greed and disregard for others is what put us on top, followed by the millions of people who have died in this country's name kept us there. We can just ask god to fix it and call it a day. We need to understand the world and the people within it, develope short and long term strategies, and assume that there is no help coming from god.
Some quotes from people at the event.
"I would vote for him. I would vote for him out of all the Republican candidates. He is not afraid to say this is a problem and this is how to fix it. Obama is not a leader"
and
"America was in decline economically and morally, and losing its influence abroad. The nation that forgets God is turned into hell. said. God had promised that through prayer this could be reversed, healing the land"
I'm all for people praying. But the thought that people think these are the means of fixing this country baffles me. Wouldn't God have prevented it from happening in the first place? What makes us so special? This event took place just after that massive Quake hit Japan. Isn't it selfish to think that we deserve attention and help due to our terrible decissions over the millions of people now homeless due to a natural dissaster? I just feel like having too much faith can be a bad thing, especially in politics. Guiding a country not by logic, but by hope just seems very irresponsible to me. This is why voting based on faith scares me. People don't know about real issues, or real solutions.
good post, Chino. It reminds me of Solomon in Ecclesiastes who wrote, "do not be overly wicked or overly righteous."
I would only add that the biblical picture of a Christians role in life is to pursue what is excellent and that God will work through them to bring about what is best. If a politician is truly a man of faith (but it is probably easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than for a person of true faith to make it that far up in the midst of all the corruption) then he will pursue every human avenue of excellence in his position, but his faith will give him peace in the fact that the sovereign God will be working through his decisions to bring about his will.
-
Ok :heart
hey, this is your first warning.
this is p/r.
this is not a place of :heart but a place of >:(
you have been warned
:rollin
That made me spit tea.
-
I'm not saying there aren't plenty of reasons to dislike Santorum, but is this particular issue that egregious? I'm all for the separation of church having authority over the state and vice versa, but I don't think that's what Santorum is addressing. Rather, he's making an observation that faith has become absent in politics entirely.
What business does faith have in politics anyway?
I would turn the question around and ask what business someone without faith has trying to hold him/herself out as being able to properly represent a nation of people, the majority of which claim to have one faith or the other?
But the answer to your question is not difficult, although it may be difficult to understand for one who has no faith. Faith should permeate one's life. It isn't something you can draw fences around and allow to influence one part of your life and not others. So as far as what business faith has in politics, for the politician who has faith, it has every business in politics.
Your faith can't rule the lives of those who don't agree with you. And that's what Santorum would like to accomplish, I imagine. That's why I think it's better to separate it from politics
-
And there are some very good historical reasons for maintaining that separation. All living memory of the Age of Religious Wars has long since been snuffed out, and I prefer to keep it that way.
-
The key thing here is how badly Santorum missed the point of JFK's speech. How he could possibly have interpreted it the way he did if he actually read/listened to it is baffling.
-
The key thing here is how badly Santorum missed the point of JFK's speech. How he could possibly have interpreted it the way he did if he actually read/listened to it is baffling.
I really can't see it as anything other than an intentional misrepresentation.
-
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=santorum
-
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=santorum
https://spreadingsantorum.com/