Why, that's funny...here you mention how values based on...say the Bible has no place when...how did you put it? (Oh yeah..."applauded as the major reason why you should be President, instead of an idea about the actual system of government.")
Why is that "funny?"
Because I seemed to have thought that one of things most despicable to a majority of voters is a certain candidate whose "idea about the actual system of government" was based upon ideas exactly opposite -- and foreign -- to the Bible: Socialism!
So apparently, if a candidate focuses on socialistic atheistic values antithetical to the Bible...now that's a candidate to embrace...but if the opposing candidate zeroes in a few minutes of actual time over the length of a campaign on actually mentioning God and Biblical values...run! Duck! Hide!
You guys are trying to act as if Santorum doesn’t campaign on religious and social issues. He does.
#1...Issues like porn and pro-life matters doesn't have to have a religious base. (You don't have to be "religious" or embrace the 10 Commandments, for example, to be against murder...These days, ya just need to have access to an ultrasound machine).
If a candidate integrates Biblical values into his social issues, so what? What why would "social issues" automatically HAVE to be theologically based?
It doesn't. So what's your point in consistently injecting "social issues" in this discussion of theology?
Your seeming point is that I called you on how you've claimed in post #10 that Santorum campaign seems to (only) have a religious/social foundation.
We've never denied on this thread that Santorum doesn't integrate his faith into his campaign. That's different than saying an entire CAMPAIGN is based ONLY upon religion and social issues.
YOU are the one who has to prove your straw man from post #10, and you haven't done that! The 18 points on Santorum issues' page alone denies your claim!
So prove your statement in post #10 or give it a recall or revision.
“Why, that’s funny...here you mention how values based on...say the Bible has no place when...how did you put it? (Oh yeah...”applauded as the major reason why you should be President, instead of an idea about the actual system of government.”)”
Wow, way to go to utterly distort what I was saying just so you can accuse me of being an anti-Christian. Like I said, this is all about religion, feeling good, looking good, having family photos taken. Platform is secondary. And if we don’t like it, off to hell for us.
“Because I seemed to have thought that one of things most despicable to a majority of voters is a certain candidate whose “idea about the actual system of government” was based upon ideas exactly opposite — and foreign — to the Bible: Socialism!”
The difference is when you make your religion the reason why you claim to deserve the Presidency.
It needs to be about ideas. We are not electing the Pope, or a daddy, or a Priest. He needs to run on actual bold ideas. He doesn’t. He’s too busy pandering to us using social and religious talking points.
Last I checked, Newt is a Catholic too.
So are we going to argue that Saint Rick is a better Catholic, and so he deserves the Presidency more? Who the heck is he preaching to? The choir. Why? Because he doesn’t have the ideas to go head to head with Newt’s platform.
“If a candidate integrates Biblical values into his social issues, so what? What why would “social issues” automatically HAVE to be theologically based?”
We’re dealing with massive debt, a system of government that is unsustainable, and pornography leads his Issues page.
It’s a matter of priority.
“YOU are the one who has to prove your straw man from post #10, and you haven’t done that! The 18 points on Santorum issues’ page alone denies your claim!”
The style and feel of his campaign is so obvious, that it takes someone who is far too eager to accuse people of being anti-Christian in order to justify it.