Santorum's emphasis on his Christianity is not good for democracy

The Baltimore Sun ^ | February 27, 2012 | Faheem Younus

[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

[katiedidit1]

No, Newt should not go..if he wins Georgia that is 76 delegates and will put him over one hundred. He should win other states in the south too. This election is still very fluid. Noone thought Newt stood a chance in Michigan..look at the demagraphics.

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

[Campion]

Today he attacked JFK, saying what he said “made him want to throw up.”.

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.

[Hoosier-Daddy]

WE
ARE
NOT
A
DEMOCRACY

A$$HAT!!!

[Toespi]

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.

[lentulusgracchus]

(Article) (font color="forestgreen">Watching Rick Santorum ... is like watching the sequel of a horror movie — one I literally lived through in the 1980s while growing up in Pakistan. ... religious zealot, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, played the lead role of the real Muslim.

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

RELIGIOUS BIGOTS AND FANATICS
who want to
BURN EVERYBODY AT THE STAKE

..... 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.

[lentulusgracchus]

The Crusades were a series of wars undertaken to defend Christianity and Western Civilization. The Muslims had all but conquered Europe.

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.

[presidio9]

I strongly disagree with about 90% of the threads that I post to FR. I read FR for the responses, and I learn most of what I know there. I live and work in the NYC area. For the past 13 years I have relied on FR to help me counter every ridiculous point the liberals I am constantly surrounded come up with.

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.