Posted on 02/27/2012 4:33:07 PM PST by presidio9
Watching Rick Santorum rise in the polls by positioning himself as the real Christian presidential candidate is like watching the sequel of a horror movie — one I literally lived through in the 1980s while growing up in Pakistan. There, another religious zealot, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, played the lead role of the real Muslim.
The plot went like this: The clerics called for candidates with "true" Muslim values, the masses demanded a "Muslim candidate for a Muslim state," the leaders proved their "Muslimness" by quoting scripture and calling others lesser Muslims, and the candidate who was able to appease the clergy privately and please the masses publicly held on to power. The never-ending horror in the name of religion is what followed in Pakistan.
A somewhat similar fusion of church and candidate is apparent in this Republican primary season, where nearly every Republican candidate — except Ron Paul, who would not and Mitt Romney, who could not — has been a rabble-rouser, playing the religion card to rally the conservative Christian base.
Since I have seen a secular country morphing into a theocracy at the hands of a religious fanatic, trust me when I tell you: The aggressive display of theology in our political discourse by the Republican Party in general and Rick Santorum in particular is chipping away at the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state.
Realize, though, that I do want to hear what my candidates believe in — what shapes them, what riles them, what motivates them. But that is different than saying, "At the end of the day, I'd rather have a president who worships the same God as I do." (A voter in South Carolina actually said that to a New York Times reporter.)
While Article Six of the United States Constitution provides
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
From unwarranted sarcasm of your answer, I think I see your problem. You are the type of person who makes a cursory review of statements and then passes superficial judgement.
For example, I presented myself as a student of politics, not an authority. And I identified myself a Catholic, not an expert.
Likewise, the idea that a Catholic can completely exclude his religious beliefs from his descision making process is ridiculous. Would you have preferred that Santorum point out the obvious: Either JFK was lying to gain favor with his Baptist audience, or he was not sincere in his Catholicism?
For example: If you are a politician working to preserve abortion rights, Nancy Pelosi for example, the Church teaches us that you have excommunicated yourself latae sententiae. Until this has been corrected, you can go to daily Mass, carry around a Rosary, and name your kids after Saints. You are still not in Communion with the Church and are therefore not a Catholic. No matter what you choose to call yourself. Catholicism is a daily choice, not an ethnicity.
Incidently, there has been no greater cheerleader for Newt Gingrich on this website than yours truely.
But not to the point of making baseless attacks on other candidates.
Faheem wants more emphasis on Islam?
It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson’s example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four.
Worship services in the House—a practice that continued until after the Civil War—were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary.
Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a “crowded audience.” Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
But Obama's f'ed up Chrislam theology is perfectly fine, right?!
Once The Lewinski entered the jargon of socially acceptable performance in the Oval Office, you could figure the societal decay was pretty advanced.
Satan doesn’t give up gained territory easily, but there is One whom he will give in to.
I don’t make “baseless” attacks. I point out facts.
GO NEWT!
The Left is deeply frightened by any mention of God.
And I don't blame them.
The Left is deeply frightened by any mention of God.
And I don't blame them.
Stop your crap. I don’t appreciate being “talked down to,” about my religion or beliefs. I call myself a catholic and the only being that will ever have the power to judge my faith and intent is Jesus Christ. Your post reminds me of a Rick Santorum stump speech.
Pretty much true. Even if Jesus turns out to be a fraud, there is still a need for respect for authority.
Once a belief's tenets are shown to be false, it's finished....Muslim or Christian.
Anarchy follows.
“There is sin and evil in the world, and we’re enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might.” - Ronald Reagan, Evil Empire speech
http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganEvilEmpire1983.html
I am not talking down to you. I am reminding you of facts. For example, we don't get to pick which aspects of Catholicism we find convenient and throw away the rest. We either follow the rules as presented to us, or we can invent our own religion, which is similiar to Catholicism, but not the same thing. This may make you feel uncomfortable, but shooting the messanger won't change the facts.
Somewhere in that speech I am sure Ronald Reagan must have also expressed that JFK made him “throw up.”
Not accusing you of anything, just looking for a character referrence. I believe my support of Newt Gingrich speaks for itself.
That being said, after Michigan and Arizona, either Rick or Newt must go or we're going to be stuck with Romney. That I can not tolerate.
Not accusing you of anything, just looking for a character referrence. I believe my support of Newt Gingrich speaks for itself.
That being said, after Michigan and Arizona, either Rick or Newt must go or we're going to be stuck with Romney. That I can not tolerate.
I’m a Catholic, and I also give a barf for JFK!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.