Rick Santorum openly admits to wanting Christian theocracy

Santorum is a madman and should never have been allowed in politics to begin with. That he's even close to the presidency shows just how (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up this nation is. Luckily social conservatives are dying off, and with any luck the young conservatives will take a more libertarian stand, you know bring the Republican party to what it pretends its core values are.

 

...Even though its core values are in big government policies, and social liberalism. Ironically, the Democratic Party's foundation is in small government policies. The one element of the original Republican Party that is still intact, but is waning is the commitment to big business. On the other hand, the Democratic Party is gradually replacing the Republican Party on most of its stances. The Democratic Party has even started to become the party of the financial sector, and to a very limited extent, big business. If the Republican Party can somehow returns to its socially liberal position, and maintains its big business stance in its current form, or even increases it, you could likely see a synthesis of the two major political parties.

 

Have you been paying attention to this election? If you have, then you would realize what Republican candidate is in lead, and what libertarian candidate is trailing.

Social conservatism, big government republicans are not dying off in favor of limited government conservatism.

 

Yes, I agree. I think what Kennedy had to do all those years ago....was to sort of "run away from his religion." There was so much talk back then about voting in a Catholic president.....'Oh no, he's going to make us ALL Catholics!'
There was the same kind of fear out there that we have today with Santorum.....simply because they were both men of faith.

Kennedy did not impose his religious beliefs on any Americans....and neither would Santorum. But practicing their own faith....not being ashamed to be a practicing Christian and setting a good example??? That's another thing altogether.

 

Okay. Here I think he may be off base.

If you can afford NOT to leave your kids with strangers, while you work, I think it's undeniably a better situation for your kids. No doubt about that.

He happens to be absolutely right and history backs him up. The Crusades were a reaction to Islam conquering the Holy Land and subjugating it under their control. Is Santorum supposed to apologize for the Crusades here? I think not.

It is Israeli land, handed over by the aggressor nations when all of Islam ganged up on Israel and tried to drive them into the sea during the Six Day War. That's the risk you take during wars of aggression. I wish apologists for Arab war mongers would stop whining about something lost through their own savagery.

A pretty obtuse point.

The slippery slope. It's valid considering polygamists are suing for their "right" to marry also.

 

Thank you!

 

The republicans have chased a lot of libertarian leaning people out of the party. In fact Ron Paul is the only libertarian leaning republican I can think of, and he's really not that great he's just the best option out there. While some libertarian leaning people have clearly remained it is obvious that they are still drown out by the social conservatives. These people are dying off, physically dying off. Younger people don't tend to care as much about preventing the gays from marrying, banning birth control, and all that other religiously lead mumbo-jumbo. As they replace the dying voters, I think we'll see the party shift. It'll have to, because what they're doing now clearly isn't working.

 

I'm sorry, but WHAT? That is a BS revision of history. Sure, "Islam" (Rashidun Caliphate) captured Jerusalem... abut FOUR HUNDRED YEARS PRIOR.

 

Gee, perhaps you should read some history instead of firing off angry, misinformed posts.
It's true that "peaceful" Muslims captured (took) the Holy Lands in approximately 661.
But an appeal by Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnonos
in repelling invading Seljuk Turks in Anatolia (the religion of peace, again)
in 1095 ultimately led to the recapture of Jerusalem as the desire to check
the marauding expansionist Muslims and redraw the lines between Christendom and Islam led to the Crusades (properly) reclaiming Jerusalem.
You're welcome!

 

Yes, and I'd like you to admit that you were wrong for why the Crusades took place.

Yes, two large dynasties had been vying for control over lands for quite awhile. How unprecedented during the Middle Ages

By the way, Alexios I went to the Council of Clermont to ask for support in repelling them. Support, I might add, that only included getting mercenaries in his ranks. Guess what Pope Urban I decided to do instead? That's right, start a crusade to retake holy lands. Something that has NOTHING to do with the Byzantines and Seljuqs.

Honestly, you're just flat out wrong with your history.

 

Why should I do that?
"The Crusades were a reaction to Islam conquering the Holy Land and subjugating it under their control. Is Santorum supposed to apologize for the Crusades here? I think not."

This is what I said. It's absolutely fitting. Why not admit you are making something out of nothing?

As I said, along with repelling rapacious expansionist Muslims from Anatolia, the view was that Muslims should be expelled from ALL Christian lands they had invaded, especially the essential Christian lands of Israel (Jerusalem, Bethlehem, etc.).

Honestly, I'm totally accurate.

 

Because that isn't the reason the Crusades came about. The Crusades came about not because the Holy Land was just conquered, but because of a war that had nothing to do with the Holy Land and a Pope who decided to launch a religious war.

 

You are being very dishonest in two basic ways.
I never ever said the Holy Land had "just" been captured (prove me wrong) and the Pope did not just "decide" to launch a holy war (as if he just decided one day to have fish for breakfast).
The decision was based on centuries of Muslim expansionism and the realization that it must be checked, or else, at some point. Anatolia was the trigger that started that reclamation.


In the Holy Land originally, Iberia, Spain and France, for instance in the 700's, and of course in Anatolia (which spurred on the Crusades into Jerusalem). In Georgia, Crete, Turkey, Southern Iraly, Greece, etc. etc. etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests

 

You said it was a reaction, and I've never seen a reaction happen four hundred years after the fact.

 

If the Pope was launching a "religious war" then surely it was in response to the Muslim Caliphs that gobbled up territory, riches and subjects for forced conversion and subjugation, and their religious war. Your perspective is biased, to say the least.

 

It was actually closer to 350 years after the fact but the rationale remains the same: The takeover of Anatolia and the relentless annexation of Christian lands.
As I already said (twice), the desire was to reset Christian boundary lines and reclaim the vital Jerusalem. If Christians had captured Mecca by force I'm sure you would be able to understand Islam wanting it back, four hundred years later or not. And I'm sure you wouldn't demonize them for wanting to start a "holy war". But that's bias, for you.

 

Listen, I want to keep this debate civil so I just want to point out that I only had issue with the way you said that it was a reaction to Muslim takeover of Jerusalem. I'm fine with admitting that both sides engaged in aggression, and I really wish it didn't turn out that way. Saying that, I think that Pope Urban's war was absolutely barbaric and I don't agree with him basically saying that Christ wanted it to occur. Not to mention the "rewards" that Urban gave whoever joined that God-forsaken Crusade.

 

You don't think the Pope (leader of the Christian church) wanted to recover the church's holiest place (birthplace and land of Jesus) from the people that stole it and were now taking large chunks of Christiandom with alarming regularity?
No one, with any backbone, sits still and lets others prepare their graves for them.

Unlike wars of slaughter and pillage that Muslim's waged to rapaciously enlarge their empire?
Mohammed had instructed his followers not to take prisoners and all the Meccans who fell off their camels were instantly beheaded. The carnage that followed led to a complete rout of the Meccans and the victory of a bandit whose followers were to carry forward this bloodied legacy across continents, slaughtering millions of people Abu Jahal, the leader of the Meccan army was trapped under his camel that had lost its balance and fallen to the ground. In this position when he could not fight back, he was beheaded by Umar – the future Khalifa Caliph. His head was presented by Umar to Mohammed who was delighted to see his enemy decapitated. (“Strike of the heads of the non-believers” is the mentality Mohammed drilled into his followers. And this commandment found its way into the Quran whose word is followed by the Zarqawi and Al Qaeda thugs even today).
Your requirements for morality seem very one sided.

Given the words of Jesus it's unlikely he would approve of wars in his name. As far as issuing rewards for those who fight, who would risk their life for nothing (of a personal nature)? Did GI's draw wages during WWII?

 

He just gaurentted a loss if he gets to the general. What a dumbass.

 

No, no, no, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that it was disingenuous to call it a reaction.

I'm confused, when did I say that I morally accepted force in the Quran?

Of course they drew wages, but for Pope Urban to declare that whoever joined would be absolved of sins is absolutely ridiculous.

 

So you object to the word "reaction"? Is there a shrug smiley? I believe I've covered the rationale for the Crusades over and over. If you don't accept it, well, what can I say?

When did you condemn it, the way you specifically mentioned the "barbaric" behavior of the West? You don't have to specifically say anything to send a message. Message sent.

Of course I agree. But that's the power that the church wielded in those days. It all ended with the Protestant Reformation centuries later.

 

Exactly, which is why I tried to clear the air

From a few posts ago:

"I'm fine with admitting that both sides engaged in aggression, and I really wish it didn't turn out that way. "

Thank goodness.

 

Well, there a literally volumes dealing with the Crusades and we shouldn't be simplistic about it. But the violent theft of the Holy Lands was a constant thorn to the church and the attacks of the Seljuk Turks simply and finally galvanized the resolve of the Church to regain what was theirs (or Christiandom's).

That's fine but I remember this remark was in response my pointing out your one sided criticisms of the West.

I agree wholeheartedly!

 

Sorry that this seems to shock you so much.

No one said the Greeks were arbiters of truth. It was the language of the NT however and the philosophy of the Greeks .. having founded a school of philosophy that existed for 700 years .. was well known by anyone who was anyone.

Im not sure when you opened a Bible last but next time you do notice that
8 NT Gospels consist of letters written to Greek Churches. This was where Pauls ministry took him. Thessolonians 1 and 2, Galatians, Ephesians, Corinthians 1 and 2, Philippeans, and Collosians.

Of course Origin did not write the Bible but this does not change the fact that the Trinity as we know it today was not believed by the early Christians.

As far as baptism is concerned .. The original baptism formulation was "Baptized in the name of Jesus"... This was changed to "Father Son and Holy Spirit" much later.

I hope this does not trouble you.

 

The guiding principle in relation to Religion was that the state was not to make laws on the basis of religious belief.

I do not think they could make themselves anymore clear.