Skip to comments.Santorum's emphasis on his Christianity is not good for democracy
Posted on 02/27/2012 4:33:07 PM PST by presidio9
click here to read article
Newt may do very well in Texas with Norris and Perrys help and in Ohio too. He just got mega millions from Adelson to continue on...break up the delegates and hang in is what I want Newt to do.
Rush Limbaugh said today that Newt could very well make a come back..Santorum got a free pass for a looooooooooooong time as Mitt attacked Newt to the tune of millions and so did Fox and the establishment. I can't stand Santorum..he is a pious fraud
What JFK said ought to make anyone throw up. He effectively said that his religion had nothing to do with how he would govern. In other words, his religion is something he does for an hour each weekend. The rest of the time, it has nothing to do with how he lives his life. The technical term for that is "hypocrisy".
In the case of John Kennedy, that was (a) something he said to give Protestants the warm-and-fuzzies; and (b) quite literally true. He went to Mass on Sunday, and spent the rest of the week seducing 19-year-old interns, pimping them out to his friends, cutting the rug out from under the heroes who wanted to liberate Cuba, risking all-out nuclear war through his weakness before Khruschev in Vienna, cutting the rug out from under our allies in South Vietnam, scr*wing an East German agent and a Mafia moll when he wasn't seducing his teenage intern ... shall I go on?
JFK, and what he said in the Houston speech, ought to make anyone who loves America throw up.
Do you know that Santorum has already issued a statement that he regrets what he said about wanting to vomit? Why do you think he is sorry? Because of the blowback of yet another santorum brain/mouth coordination problem. I am not a fan of JFK or his thoughts on the subject. Santorums statement was crude, elementary, and lacked dignity, that is the issue. He just falls right into the picture liberals love to paint of conservatives.
You've posted articles like this twice today. This one is on Christians participating in politics, by a Mohammedan Islamist. The other one was a Richard Cohen hit-piece against Santorum for basically not being okay with gay and willing to "flex" on abortion and other irrelevant, non-presidential, out-of-bounds issues.
So what is the point of posting these guys, presidio9 ..... unless you think Christian social conservatives are the moral equivalent of Taliban, and are
..... and you want to see them excluded 100% from public life pro bono? Come on, step up. Man up, and quit chipping little snarky chipshots (using borrowed voices, Newsweak-style) from the sidelines. Spit it out -- RELIGION IS BAD, 'ngkay? And religious people need to be cast out, got rid of. Yes? Maybe disenfranchised by a test of their religious "suitability" for presenting to the secularizing public? Locked in the national attic like a crazy uncle?
Talk to us. Signify.
No, the Seljuk Turks, after the Battle of Manzikert in, um, about 1071 or 1074 (Byzantine Greeks vs. Turks eastern Turkey [then the eastern frontier of the Greek Empire]), cut off all Christian access to Jerusalem. This provoked a papal call for Crusaders to take the city and restore communication of Christianity with its roots.
And fwiw, I have never seen a Moslem criticism of the Seljuks for their intolerant initiative (which departed from the Moslem policies of the previous 450 years), even considering the damage that was done to the Caliphate by the Crusades. It is never the Moslem's fault, always the unbeliever's.
What's interesting about reading or responding to a thread that everyone here on FR agrees with? I you have a problem with that, the great thing about the internet (and this country in general) is that you can exercise your right not to read it.