Rick Santorum openly admits to wanting Christian theocracy

Nonsense. England has a state religion (Church of England), but nobody is coerced into either believing or practising it.

 

One of the primary purposes of the constitution is to prohibit the State from creating laws on the basis of religion.

Clearly Santorum is confused.

 

This is not only true for Santorum but for Romney as well. Both oppose the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment when it comes to same-gender marriage and both oppose it solely because of their religious beliefs. They both advocate a Constitutional Amendment on Marriage prohibiting same-gender marriage that would institutionalize discrimination.

Historically it would have been identical to demanding a Constitutional Amendment to ban inter-racial marriage in the 1960's when the Supreme Court finally overturned that prohibition in Loving v Virginia based upon the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

Americans should reject any presidential candidates that openly come out in opposition to the US Constitution and both Santorum and Romney openly oppose the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

""I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," Santorum, a devout Catholic, said in an interview from Michigan on ABC's "This Week.""

http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-says-...164307440.html

so does this mean he supports sharia law?

total nonsense, a theocracy is exactly what the founders did NOT want

 

There is fundamentally no difference between Christian Theocracy and an Islamic Theocracy.

 

Oh my, Pot, Kettle is calling!

Fear and loathing are not present in that quote at all, trying to make links to Nazi's and Soviet Russia to liberals? Really?

Like you aren't doing the same thing here, spouting a broad and baseless assumption?

Skinheads idolize Nazi Germany, and they are certainly racists, so since I have heard that Republicans are racist, then all republicans are Nazi Skinheads. See what I did there?

Maybe it's time for people like you to tone down the rhetoric just a tad, and really listen to what people of opposing views really want to do, instead of hearing it from talk radio, or some other nut job and then regurgitating it on the forums.

 

amazing isn't it, all the doom and gloom talk about repealing DADT, and once repealed... nothing... life goes on without hardly missing a beat

 

Amen, opening the door to one today, could open the door to another tomorrow

 

Well, except an Islamic Theocracy is spelled out in the Koran, while a christian theocracy is whatever you imagine it to be, because there is not one defined in the bible.

 

Care to provide even one example of anyone who "swore up and down that it would completely destroy the US military"?

 

just a quick search

http://oneutah.org/this-blog/everybody-was-living-a-big-lie-the-outcome-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/

"We don’t want San Francisco values imposed upon the military,” said TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty. “If the 1993 legislation is repealed, it will result in the subversion of our military and create sexual chaos in the barracks and shower facilities. We cannot have our service men and women subjected to open displays of homosexual behaviors.”"

 

"sexual chaos in the barracks and shower facilities", doesnt equte to completely destroyed military. I was assuming it was made up and you tend to confirm that fact.

 

It doesn't matter. Either laws are made on the basis of religion or they are not.

We have a thousands of years of history showing religion of one form or another being used as a political tool for persecution.

The founding fathers were well aware of this, having lived at at time where persecution on the basis of religion was common place and fresh in the memories of all many folks that came to the US.

As such the Constitution was created to give folks protection from this kind of abuse.

The problem is that when you have a religious justification for laws there is no honest debate.

Who can debate "God says so" ?

 

It's amazing how some people can read one thing and hear something completely different. It's like that game called telephone that you played as a kid where you whispered, "I'm going shopping at the mall," into the person's ear sitting next to you and then passed it around the circle from one person to the next and by the time it got back around to you it was, "Godzilla has big green balls."

Whisper something into a liberal's ear and it comes out of his mouth completely different. You don't even need the circle of people. It's just an instant translator into nonsense.

 

Of course since the repeal of DADT (which was really mandated by a federal court decision that it was unconstitutional) there hasn't been chaos anywhere in the military. Even isolated incidents are rare because the military actually dealt with the matter up front. We're hoping that the thousands of gay and lesbians that were forced out of the US military will re-apply as the skills they represented were considerable.

 

And other times used for the pursuit of liberty and justice for all.

George Washington
1st U.S. President

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
--The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.



John Adams
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."
--Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
--Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

John Hancock
1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
--History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.

 

And good when religion has been used for Social Justice. Its like a double edged sword .. which can be used for tremendous good or tremendous evil.

My biggest issue with folks like Santorum is they have no valid arguments for law they want to make , other than "what they think" the Bible says.


Abortion is a prime example. God actually recommends abortion. It is proscribed in the laws of the Israelites.

Santorum has no valid justification for his position based in science or logic. If he was to actually debate his position against a person with some knowledge in the issue he would be crushed and made to look a fool.

Santorum only has the platitudes of a movement that somehow figures they know what God wants.

Aside from the absurdity of making laws on the basis of "what we think God wants".....

What is even more silly is that Santorum could not even win a debate where the question was "what does God want", on the basis of the Bible because there is little in the Bible that supports his position and solid evidence from the Bible that refutes it.

 

Great quotations but the simple fact is that neither Washington, Adams, or Hancock would have supported violating the inalienable Rights of the People and equal protection under the law for all People is an inalienable Right.

John Hancock's quotation is more relevant of all where he states, "Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual" and Santorum as well as Romney and Gingrich are advocating tyranny by government in opposing equal protection for all individual's under the law. It would have been inconcievable for Washington, Adams or Hancock to avocate tyranny and denial of equal protection under the law is tyranny.

 

'San Francisco values' God bless American conservatives-what would we do without them when we need a good laugh?

Here's one I made earlier: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY"]Dr. Strangelove - Precious Bodily Fluids - YouTube[/ame]

 

Washington, Adams, or Hancock wouldnt have considered marriages limitation to a man and a woman to be violating the inalienable Rights of the People and equal protection under the law. Silly to assert that they would.

 

They would have opposed the other laws which provide special benefits and privileges based upon "marriage" which creates the violation of equal protection under the law.

That is being completely forgotten when people cite statements they make. It isn't the marriage laws that create the discrimination but instead the government benefits and privileges tied to the marriage laws that create the discrimination. Some have cited 1,400 different discriminatory practices under the law based upon the legal institution of marriage.

Eliminate all government benefits and privileges tied to the legal institution of marriage and the problem of discrimination under the law goes away.

So long as those benefits and privileges exist discrimination exists and that is a violation of the equal protection clause. Washington, Adams and Hancock would have opposed the benefits being tied to the legal institution of marriage as they would see such laws as being discriminatory.

That was basically why DOMA was declared unconstitutional. It infringed upon the State's Right to define marriage when it tied federal benefits to the legal institution of marriage and then under DOMA denied those benefits to some legally married individuals that were legally married under State laws.

 

Nonsense you make up as you go along. They celebrated those other laws.


The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person... Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.

James Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, 1792

As long as Property exists, it will accumulate in Individuals and Families. As long as Marriage exists, Knowledge, Property and Influence will accumulate in Families.

John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814

You havent read any of the same sex marriage cases, have you? Precisely the opposite. In re Marriage for example held that merely witholding the use of the word marriage, was deemed to be a violation of the constitution. Its all about winning "respect" from society for gays and some "dignity" for themselves.

 

With any luck and good fortune, the whole crippling specter of "Crusader Rick" Santorum will evaporate after today, "Super Tuesday". Romney may not be the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan, but he stands a hell of a lot better chance of getting rid of Comrade Obama for us than Rick, with his inexplicably STUPID attacks on "Roe v Wade", and earned Social Security benefits for Baby Boomers. He needs to go home, be with his family, and shut the hell up! Santorum has done little but weaken the Republican Party, and we don't need any more trouble than we already have....

 

Please cite a single federal law of the United States where any special benefits or privileges were afforded to legally married couples that were supported by Washington, Adams or Hancock. Show me a single one.

Even the bankruptcy law of 1800 passed under John Adams did not tie any conditions to the marital status of the individual. It was expressly limited to merchants and not individuals.

Of course there was no federal social security laws or inheritance laws at the federal level of government and no State laws afforded benefits to individuals for the 1st 100 plus years in the United States to my knowledge. Discrimination did not exist so the issue of equal protection under the laws did not exist.

Ultimately the whole issue of same-gender marriage is going to be predicated based upon federal, not state, laws because of federal benefits afforded to legally married couples. DOMA has already been declared unconstitutional and while under appeal there are no valid grounds for the appeal. DOMA is going to fall as being unconstitutional. That's a fact that everyone that's reviewed the law has acknowledged. The Republicans in the House know it's going to fall but are fighting it for purely political reasons.

Republican candidates like Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich also know DOMA is unconstitutional and denies equal protection under the law which is why they pledged to promote a constitutional amendment to institutionalize this discrimination and unequal treatment under the law. Of course such an amendment would never be ratified and they also know that as well. They are being purely political in their position to pander to extremist religious nut-cases in the "Christian Right" that are homophobic and authoritarian in wanting to impose a Christian theocracy upon the United States. We all know that.

As I've previously noted there is no difference between a "Christian theocracy" and an "Islamic theocracy" as both are highly tyrannical forms of government. People complain about "Shiara Law" but don't seem to understand that "Biblical Law" is just as tyrannical. Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich propose a Christian theocracy for the United States and that should be opposed by all Americans. I don't like Obama but he is far less threatening to America than Santorum, Romney and Gingrich.

 

Anything other than your desparate need to believe it is so, to base such an assertion upon or to contradict the quotes that would seem to indicate precisely the opposite.