Good.
Now do you also understand my point that even those who want to segregate the moral/theological from the political likewise are expressing a religious/moral/theological vantage point? That was one of my points in post #36...so don't remove the context of my reference to seeming hypocrisy...see below for more on that.
(By example: Many atheists often focus just as much on God & theology as a lot of theists do!)
Thank you for your fair and reasoned critique, which this time was without name calling.
OK, you've twice now referenced an objection to my mention of hypocrisy in post #36. What does that double-standard link to in post #36? I said there -- in agreeing with GulfBreeze:
Mariner doesn't want religion to be a point of conflict in November; apparently he doesn't mind if he joins in re: making it a point of conflict in February!
It came across to ME -- as apparently it likewise came across to GulfBreeze -- that you don't mind making this an issue of "conflict" now within the GOP...you only minded this being some potential issue in November.
That came across to both of us as a sort of a double-standard. Do you see my point?
This, coupled with what I mentioned above, seemed double-standard on two fronts: For example, those who object to God being mentioned in a campus graduation speech often wind up focusing on God as much as that speaker does! Likewise, those who focus on politicians mentioning theology wind up discussing theology more (on FREEPER threads, for example) than the phrase or graph mentioned by Santorum...a comment that was probably over in minutes!
It's so ironic that the "let's-keep-religion-out-of-politics" crowd wind up feasting on the religious expressions of others, thereby setting up a sense of "entitlement" that it's "A-OK" for some to focus on morality/theology but not others?
Your entire argument is flawed to begin with.
We are conservatives on this forum. The vast majority of us are pretty comfortable with Christianity and having it out there in politics.
The issue is when Christianity, or in this case, Catholicism, is applauded as the major reason why you should be President, instead of an idea about the actual system of government.
You guys are trying to act as if Santorum doesn’t campaign on religious and social issues.
He does.
Feelings, family, little kids, patriotism, all these things score high on what Santorum talks about.
Actual platform, not so much. He doesn’t even discuss the platform of his opponents, except when he feels like distorting their record or using some minor disagreement (like the moon colony thing) to insult someone of being crass or irresponsible or something or other. Meanwhile, he really isn’t comparing his tax plan or his social security plan or very much at all policy wise with his opponents. All he tells us is that he is the “true conservative” with “no baggage” who loves his kids and so he should be President.
Sorry, doesn’t fly. And that is the problem here. It has nothing to do with being atheists, or being immoral, or not liking Catholics, or whatever.
That's only 1/2 right. Let me clarify.
I absolutely contend that now is the time to raise the issues about how a potential candidate will be characterized. From Romney's magic underwear, to Paul's appeasement to Newt's Moon Colony.
And whether I object or not to such issues being used in November is irrelevant. They will be used.
It's arguable that every candidate we now have running is unelectable in the General. I'm not prepared to make that argument just yet.