Rick Santorum openly admits to wanting Christian theocracy

What silliness

Thats it? Sooooo for you and the author of the blog, a theocracy is any state where "people of faith" are NOT EXCLUDED from any role in the public square. We already have a theocracy by that definition. Most Christians would probably consider George Bush to be a person of faith, and he recently had a BIG role in our public square. Im an atheist, but thank goodness that I live in a country where people arent EXCLUDED from any public role because of their faith.

 

'Silliness' you either did not understand or you could not dispute or both.


Why are gay relationships a 'building block' of society?

Why can you not understand that society includes - by definition - ALL HUMANS in a relationship.

So all consenting homosexual relationships contribute to society.

No offense intended but...DUH.

 

How can one disagree with this? Homosexuals are human beings.
.

 

Obviously you consider all members of society to be "building blocks" of society, while I consider "building blocks" to be something much more than each individuals contribution. Men and women, becoming husbands and wives, joining together to be fathers and mothers to the children they create, providing and caring for the next generation of the human species, across thousands of years, around the world, is much more fundamental to the developement of human society.

 

You mean to you it is.

And you used the term 'society' - and BY DEFINITION that MUST include ALL humans in relationships.

Besides, I have known TONS of parents that have done FAR more harm to society then good by being crappy parents.

And, no offense, but the notion that you have to have children to contribute to society is utterly ridiculous.

By that standard, all men and women (even heterosexual) who cannot or do not wish to have children might as well off themselves since they cannot contribute to society in any significant way...according to your theory.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

Again then you dont know history, look at greek culture from 700 bc .

Btw our concept of marriage is quite recent, for the most time during history is was more slavery then anything else .

 

Strange "the church can have no influence" is the core of that statement.

"Theocracy is a form of government in which the official policy is to be governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, or simply pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religious sect or religion."

You seem the share the same delussion as santirum, nobody is saying nobody with any belief should be banned from the public square. People are simply saying they dont want anyone who would take lead from a religious organisation such as santorum has done.

The issue is santorum should eb in charge, not the pope in rome.

 

Ah apperently the only part our society needs are parents? Society needs a lot of different romes for it to work, parents is one of them.

James madison was childless (think he addopted one) he was less fundamental then anyone having children?

 

Dont be silly. No one denies their existance in society. Just their statue as a "building block" of society.

 

Ok, but it only further demonstrates my point

 

A statement that INCLUDED "people of faith have no role in the public square"

As opposed to a representative democracy where all citizens, including "people of faith", have both influence on our government and the freedom to play a role in the public square. Like here in the US.

Its the stated view Santorum was opposed to, that everyone here is labeling as advocating a theocracy. Irrelevant if anybody actually "saying" it or not.

Sounds like you are advocating Santorum be excluded from serving in the US Congress because of his faith.

 

So far this is all the DNC can offer as potential problems for a conservative President, LOL not much ammo on him! Most reasonable people don't see him as a serious threat to our religious/nor non religious people.

As opposed to Obama preferring all religions conform to his beliefs!

Santorum will get my vote Tuesday!

 

Sparta was one small part of greece .

Again James madison was childless he was less fundamental then anyone "creating" children?

 

While not directed at me I have no problem with people of faith serving as elected representatives of the People but they must comply with their oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution even if it contradicts their subjective religious beliefs. They are not being elected to be deacons of a church but instead as representatives of the United States government which is a Constitutional government and not a Christian theocracy. If they can't do that then they should not be elected and, in fact, shouldn't even run because they are not dedicated the the United States and the People of the United States.

My main issue against Santorum (as well as Gingrich and Romney) is his willingness to deny same-gender couples the legal institution of marriage. The legal institution of marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the religious institution of marriage. Rick Santorum is welcome to his religious beliefs related to marriage but he cannot apply those standards to the legal institution which has nothing to do with religion. The instances of discrimination under the law related to the denial of same-gender marriage are clearly established and violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

A person that opposes the US Constitution, and Santorum openly opposes the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, is not qualified and should not be elected to public office.

The inclusion of same-gender couples in the legal institution of marriage does not diminish Santorum's beliefs in the religious institution of marriage. The two have nothing to do with each other and until he can make that simple distinction between the two he should not hold any public office.

 

That was santorum, kennedy never said anything coming even close to that.

Again : "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."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600

I am not saying anything different.

The issue isnt with people believing the issue is those people following whatever or whoever represent the religion they happen to believe in.


The president is elected, not the minister of the church he happens to attend.

Seeing that santorum is disgusted by saying this, its clear (as he said before) he would like to continue to follow the pope. aka " pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religious sect or religion"

No thats what santorum twisted it into, intentional ot just because anydared talk in such a way about religion he overreacted I dont know, but kennedy was clear, just read his speech.

Absolute BS, just like santorum you feel the need to invent things.

No santorum can run, people should just realise what they are gettng themsleves into.

 

Feel free to present your different law from different regions of Greece, that you believe are any different

 

Sooooo we know where he was mistaken about Kennedys speech. Where does he advocate theocracy?

 

Sooo what are you advocating when you say

if not that he should be excluded?

 

Greek boys no longer left the confines of the community, but rather paired up with older men within the confines of the city. These men, like their earlier counterparts, played an educational and instructive role in the lives of their young companions; likewise, just as in earlier times, they shared a sexual relationship with their boys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

Seems pretty clear to me.

The statement and the one in general about married parents being the only important is BS dont defend it.

 

By simply following the rules set by his religion. Kennedy gave that speech to make it clear he WOULDNT do what his religion mandates him to do.

 

What is clear from what I said: people dont want someone like santorum for president.

 

Ahhh....hello; there are PLENTY of people who deny their existence in society. Many who think they are sub-human and other crap like that.


Also, I noticed how you avoided the other part of my post.

Are you saying that a man or a woman that cannot/will not have children do not fit your definition of 'building blocks' in society?

Yes or no, please?

 

I was looking for evidence of the claim made in the opening post that "Rick Santorum openly admits to wanting Christian theocracy". A claim that everyone, long ago, seems to have abandoned.

 

Correct, YES. Two individuals do not a building block of society make.

 

are you kidding, you don't think he wants to turn his religious beliefs into laws?