Republican Politicians That Are Hypocrites

Not all Republican politicians are hypocrites but most are and the documentation of this is beyond question as I will show below.

The Republican Party Platform states the following:

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm

In the above Party Platform Plank the Republican Party, as a whole, condemns laws that establish discrimination based upon gender (sex) and come out strongly in supporting anti-discrimination statutes. Additionally then reject the forces of hatred and bigotry and condemn all that promote religious intolerance.

Religious intolerance has two different components. Obviously it address those that would seek to oppress freedom of religion that we value in the United States.

Religious intolerance is also reflected by oppression of individuals based upon individual religious beliefs. The imposition of religious beliefs under the law is an act reflecting religious intolerance identical in all respects to denying an individual religious freedom.

Yesterday Rick Santorum condemned the President for not imposing Christian ideology in his actions as the President.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/santorum-says-obama-agenda-not-based-bible-011457960.html

Rick Santorum is clearly hypocritical in "embracing" Republican values while reflecting clear religious intolerance related to both contraception and "gay marriage" in his public statements. He is promoting religious bigotry (and not all bigotry is wrong) by supporting discriminatory laws based upon "gender" (not sexual behavior) that prohibit same-gender marriage. His religious beliefs oppose gay sex, which is not a legal issue at all, and he seeks to impose his religious beliefs that are unquestionably establish gender (sex) discrimination upon all of America. He promotes "hatred" agianst same-gender couples with arguments against their sexual behavior that his "religious" beliefs. Rick Santorum seeks to impose discrimination based upon religious bigotry and hatred. His actions clearly reflect religious intolerance related to homosexuality and he seeks to codify that religious intolerance imposing discrimination under the laws of the United States.

This is not just a condemnation of Rich Santorum as all of the Republican presidential candidates, with the lone exception of Ron Paul, have signed the National Organization for Marriage pledge and the linkage between NOM and the Later Day Saints and Catholic Church are generally acknowledged. NOM is a "religious based" political action committee supported by a few very wealthy "Christians" seeking to impose their religious beliefs upon all of America.

The Republican Party Platform specifically condemns "religious intolerance" and those that practice it and the imposition of discriminatory laws of gender discrimination based upon religious bigory and hatred, which is exactly what prohibitions against same-gender marriage does, and it is religious intolerance in it's worst form.

This is religious intolerance raising it's ugly head and the faces on that head are the Republican politicians that oppose equality in marriage for All Americans based upon gender discrimination that expressly violates a Political Plank in the Republican Party Platform and is ultimately reflective of hypocracy of the highest order by these candidates.

 

So would this be like, say Obama declaring how bad super-pacs are and then using them himself?

 

Santorum criticized b.o. for a "different theology," meaning that obama acts from a Socio/communistic ideological "theology." It was a play on words. Such things don't usually get past you so easily.

 

The difference being that Super-Pacs are legal but denial of equal protection under the law is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Republican politicians that oppose same-gender marriages seek to impose religious based discrimination based upon sex (gender) criteria that the Republican Party Platform expressly condemns. Such advocacy by these politicians violates not only the expressed opposition of the Republican party to discrimination but also the expressed condemnation of bigotry and hatred created by religious intolerance.

 

Which is why we will, in my opinion, eventually need to transcend the current limitations in leadership and political philosophy and move toward a post-Republican vs. Democrat, post-Left vs.Right national consensus. I wonder how many more decades or centuries of muck and mired failure it will take before that notion becomes more than mere idealistic pie-in-the-sky non-sense.

 

Whatever he means. He just means that he is not imposing the Christianism.

And he is not communist in any point. I would like that Americans have a real communist president. Later you could say that he is communist.

But, the nonsense saying that a moderate, center right like Obama is Communist is against any sense.

 

OK, obama is just a wannabe Communist, or he's just a wannabe Socialist that is too stupid to know Socialism is the road to Communism.

In any case, he is an inexperienced dolt that believes all the garbage his subversive teachers have told him.

 

This post was about hypocrisy though so Obama's stance is relevant. Here is a good link to other hypocrisy stances of his:

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/

As for same-gender marriage, well I am opposed to it also but it has nothing to do with religion. You should be careful to lump all of the republicans into one category when discussing that.

 

Oh good grief. Seriously, this again?
Shiva, I don't get why you claim to be a libertarian, yet support the democrats.
They don't support the Constitution or fiscal responsibility. They just have one MO - pandering for votes.

This thread tact saddens me. Both parties are less than what they should be. It's up to us to make them adhere to the Constitution and fiscal sanity.

Imo, there is much to be questioned about Mr. Obama. His policies have not made America stronger, but weaker. I think he's an atheist. Why shouldn't Santorum or anyone challenge him? His "leadership" has failed.

And democrats are famous for attacking the Christian faith. Don't throw stones from a glass house, sir.

 

Even IF it were true, and Obama was an atheist? What does that have to do with being Presdent odf the United states?

It seems that the same people who place themselves as "defenders of the Constitution" have a blind spot about the First amendment and the establishment clause.

NO WHERE in the Constitution does it stat RELIGION or BELIEVING in GOD as a requirement for eligibility to the Presidential office.

In fact, it is ridiculous to look at any religious affiliation (or no religious affiliation) if one does stand with the Constitution.

 

Shiva, when will you get around to creating a liberal themed discussion as you said you would?

 

I've thought for years that hypocrisy was a requirement for being a "good" self-professed Christian. Now I see it's apparently true for being a good Republican too.

Newt's hypocrisy regarding dumba** Clinton's philandering, preaching "family values," at the same time trying to convince his then wife to be a part of an open marriage screams volumes about him, his values, and lack of integrity.

I say, nominate Ron Paul, or Obama gets my vote in an effort to keep one of those other 3 idiots out of the White House!

 

Theology refers to religious beliefs, not political ideology, as anyone who isn't an illiterate would know.
Rick's disciples ain't clever enough to have grasped his "play on words".
His "different theology" smear was clearly meant for those who believe he's a Muslim.
But he only has the courage to prattle in code rather than being honest about it.
I wonder how that got by you so easily.

 

"Selective understanding" or "selective blindness" maybe?" LOL

 

Well republicans can say that everybody has equal rights. Everybody can marry the opposite gender no matter what orientation/religion/race they are.

 

It seems to be Santorum who irks folks most at the moment.
He is clearly not my candidate, nor am I a Republican, but Republican Politicians are hypocrites...because of what Santorum believes?
Ok, now, the BC issue.
Santorum states his religious arguments, while everyone else makes this into whatever argument they think is appropriate.
As far as I can tell, this issue has very little to do with women's rights, BC, gender discrimination, but is an onslaught on our 1st Amendment, particularly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment
If we choose to do away with a Catholic employer's right to withhold funding for something that goes against their teaching, what will be next on the list?
Prayer time for Muslims, BBQ ribs for Jewish and Muslim lunches on Tuesdays, mandatory blood transfusion funding for Jehovah's witnesses?
This is a can of worms. Be careful.
As for hypocrisy, I see nothing but, everywhere, along with noses growing longer as elections near.

 

Okay, let's try to take one little exemple that you gave: blood transfusion for Jehovah's witnesses:

Do you think the first amendment give a business run by Jehovah witnesses the right to refuse a blood transfusion if (let's say) one of their insured employee is hemorraging during the birth of her child, and she needs a blood transfusion?

Well, I'm not sure what you will answer. . .and I know this exemple is extreme, but I took it because you mention it. . .and it is certainly not out of the reem of possibilities.

The answer is that the religious rights of the Jehovah's witness and all other religions are undisputed in terms of their beliefs and faith. . .however, it doesn't NOT give them free rein when it comes on ACTING on their beliefs, if it is detrimental to someone, and obviously even more if it is detrimental to a larger section of society.

Please read the following about the First amendment Establishment and exercise clause:

And this more specific legal interpretation of the "free exercise clause"

Although this clause is, as described, not immuable, and has been interpreted with some leniance over the year, the difference remains that while RELIGIOUS BELIEFS are absolutely protected, the right to ACT on those beliefs is NOT ABSOLUTE. And it usually comes down to whether allowing an action based on religious beliefs would be more or less damaging to society (or individuals) than to restrict that action.

 

So great .. we have a choice between wanna be socialism of Obama or theocracy of Santorum.

Hippie kia yeah ..

 

How can Republicans be against "the nanny state" but elect this bafoon Santorum who wants to invade your bedroom?

Honestly, if the Republicans were to ever nominate a social liberal, fiscal conservative, they'd easily have a leg up on the Democrats. But no, no, they must ponder to the Evangelicals. The Republicans really need to ditch that target demographic. They really skew everything too far right on social issues that it hurts them with the independent voters.

 

How can you claim to be a libertarian and yet believe in an all-powerful, all-controlling, all-tyrannical God, and like the idea of it?????

 

Marxism is a religion. The only difference is in what is worshipped.

 

I don't believe God is "all-controlling, all-tyrannical". Humans have free will.
Libertarians are not atheists. We're Constitutionalists. Govt has NO place in social issues.

Maybe you don't really understand the libertarian thing. <shrug>

 

One be a libertarial and believe in God. Being a libertarian just means that you are not supposed to force that belief on others.

The Consitution grants "freedom of religion" but also "freedom from religion"

 

Are you a Christian? Don't Christians think that there's a god that has ultimate power over the universe? That'd be way more scary than ANY government, even though I don't think government is generally a good thing either.

I don't think "free will" exists. Humans act according to a combination of instincts and certain cognitive and emotional nature which has developed through millions of years of natural evolution. We're no fundamentally better than any other animal for that very reason.

Define "libertarian"; "liberty" is a vague, subjective concept as it is. What one person could define as liberty, another could define as either privilege or tyranny.

Anarcho-capitalists aren't.

Agreed.

Well if so-called "libertarians" would all agree on everything then maybe I would. Instead, they all disagree with each other on all kinds of things. "Libertarian" is just a buzzword that people use to sound cool. "Libertarian" is, in political discussions, the new "cool clique" that people wanna "join" to look "cool". It's a meaningless term.

 

Refer to previous post.