Rick Santorum seems to hear a lot of things that aren’t there.
Initially, Santorum claimed he heard the call from God to run for President.
Of course, God apparently also told Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain to run for President, and they are not in the race anymore; which probably means all four of those people are prone to auditory hallucination, thus necessitating our need to institutionalize them.
But in a key moment of Santorum’s campaign, he noted that (Catholic) John F. Kennedy’s speech given in 1960 regarding separation of church and state made him “want to throw up.” Santorum’s (incorrect) stance was that Kennedy was trying to “separate faith from the public square.”
JFK’s belief was almost certainly that religious advisors should instruct them on faith and morals.
Santorum seems to have missed the entire main idea of the speech, especially in the historical context under which it was given. This indicates that Santorum—like a lot of crazy Republicans, I’ve noticed—doesn’t seem to have much in the way of critical reading or listening skills.
But Santorum also clearly cannot separate his personal faith from politics; and talks about it in this bizarre reverse-logic manner where he uses it to appear holier-than-thou. His extreme stances on sex and birth control, prenatal testing, women’s roles in the home and in the military, college campuses, homosexuality, pornography, comments about Satan having his sights set on America, and the environment are clearly derivative from his very strong faith. And I don’t have a hard-line to Christ on Skype like Santorum does—so I can’t know this for sure—but I’m fairly certain that’s the impetus for his belief system, and his political judgments. He wants more religious input on government policy and faith-based politicking. He wants more Christian Conservative influence in our legislation.
So it’s really too bad Rick isn’t able to hear the voice of JFK echoing to him from the afterlife, because I’m willing to bet they could've sorted out their differences and he eventually would’ve found Kennedy a greater ally in his belief system than he would have found in me.
Because I absolutely believe all politicians should separate their faith from the public square.
Politics and religion should be like water and oil (or, to put it in Santorum’s terms: women and sexual freedom). A politician’s religious viewpoints should be kept personal, should neither be espoused nor openly questioned, and should absolutely never be the impetus for policy.
This is very simple: Using your religion (or even non-religion) as a moral basis for your personality and character is one thing; but using it openly as a motivating factor for your platform only creates divisions between people. With neutrality, and acceptance, and understanding—the things your religion should have taught you in the first place— you defend freedom of religion. But religious biases of all kinds should not affect government; because, in turn government could then also affect religion. It is a national imperative that people recognize this; especially those who might vote for a religious extremist like Rick Santorum.
If histories, and other countries, have taught us anything, it’s that religious and political extremists are dangerous people, especially in combination. In fact, you might say only religious and political extremists are worth fearing. What other type of extremists in this country even rank as anything more than "mildly annoying"? NASCAR extremists? Bieber extremists? Who has the potential to be more dangerous—Rick Santorum or a girl who passes out while excitedly dancing to “Baby”?
So, in regards to Santorum’s repeated efforts to push his religion in the dialogue as part of a campaign to be President of the United States, I would tell him to go home.
And then I would tell him that he should feel free to run his household in whatever manner he chooses, because that is what religious freedom is all about.
You wanna home school your daughter out of fear that college is for snobs who will cause her to lose her religion? Your choice. Go right ahead.
You want to be against abortion, even if that daughter is raped? That’s your prerogative.
Enjoy your grandchildren.
You want to be against gay marriage, or going to college, or people of other races? Fantastic. We’re not going to be friends, but you are 100% welcome to be that person as long as you’re not hurting anyone else outwardly with your bigotry.
But don’t run for President.
Don’t assume that what has influenced you should influence me. Don’t you, for a second, have the ignorance and audacity to believe that I’m going to run my life in this country, under your moral and religious parameters. You are not of some higher moral and spiritual ground than I am to infringe upon our existing freedoms.
And how dare you even mildly assert that I should run my life by the principles of either you, or your view of God?
In short: be conservatively religious as an individual, and in your home. The policy of the nation needs to be more liberal in accepting faiths and beliefs of all kinds; even ones that do not gel with the religion and morality you’ve been taught to believe.
And if you don’t accept that, Rick, at the very least, this whole process should have taught you one thing:
If you really did hear the voice of God to run for President, it’s only because He wanted you to know you’re a loser.
Bottom line Fat Jesus, is that you are free to practice any religion, free from persecution, provided you don't break any of our laws" That's when the rule changes a bit and you lose that right. Just think: all this controversy over a few million people's belief that this whole world started 5000 years ago with Adam, Eve and a talking snake! One thing I forgot to mention is: I feel one religious thing that should be illegal is the music. Christian rock bands are extremely gay, and you have to admit the music pretty much sucks too - right? We should just pass a law now that forbids this kinda of rubbish before any normal kids hear it and decide to become gay.
your commitment to the gracious tolerance of others illustrates so succinctly the failure of the PC diversity culture of todays political left. Why does the phrase "first they came for the Catholics" keep running through my head? Because you put it there.
Read Matthew 5:10-12 and decide for yourself if that time is not now.
Funny, what you suggest the extremists are doing is exactly what Ms. Russ is advocating. Seems like the anti-religionist need to do some soul searching and Constitutional Law studying.
Politicians -- not just crazy Rick -- push our "fear" buttons to get votes. Then they get together with the D's and the R's in a D.C. bar and laugh at us. This country was founded by people who were trying to escape religious persecution. So they tried to make sure that the government would not espouse one religion over any others. Why not try tolerance and morality for its own sake? Not just because you're afraid some creature in the heavens will strike out dead with lightning. My philosophy in life is simple: I try to behave so that, if everyone in the world did the same, it would be a better world. I don't always succeed, but the effort is sincere. Why so much anger when anyone dares to suggest that a politician stirring up the natives through religion, to suit his election hopes, is doing the wrong thing? And the idiots reside on both sides of the aisle, with D's and R's to their name. And since we keep re-electing them I guess that makes us even greater idiots. Shame on us.
"There has been so much harm done in this world in the name of religion." True, but in the 20th Century Anti-Religious beliefs made up for all the lost time and added some new records to the harm done to the world. You believe in what most people call the Golden Rule, we share that belief. Can you honestly appraise some of the posts to this article as being guided by that rule?
It is probably a good time to read Cardinal George's letter to his parishioners. http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2012/0226/cardinal.aspx
What was your point again? Pot, meet kettle.
I'd bet we'd then have to hear how he's unprincipled.
Faith is a part of life. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, Buddhist, Taoist, Pantheist, Wiccan, etc. ALL OF THEM. By saying 'God belongs in our nation' and referring to the 'God of Scriptures' you are implying a very Christian-centric tone to your comment. And that tone flies in opposition of the point you seem to be trying to make. Faiths/religions should not dictate civic discourse in any way. That's the trouble with democracy - not everyone is the same as you.
I disagree. Faith can not be divorced from the "civic discourse". As you admit "Faith is part of life". Taking your argument to it's fullest extent the faithful believer MUST then become someone who believes one thing and does another. You are ENFORCING the hypocricy you decry. "That's the trouble with democracy - not everyone is the same as you."