Replies

But like I said, the people like Santorum are in the minority in the country, and he is going to have to tone down his stuff if he has any chance of getting the independent vote. Strong on national defense? Yes. Strong on protecting those that act in self defense? Someone that is going to remove regulatory roadblocks to jobs being generated in the US so companies with an ounce of self respect can come back and employ American workers? Yes. That is what we need.
Someone that is going to say that the idea of the separation of church and state makes him sick? No. We don’t need that. Sure you can use your compassion that your faith gives you to help you run the country. But not to impose a bunch of Old Testament rules on people that might not share your religion, and just want to be left alone, without having to deal with a bunch of rules that micromanage their lives. We get a bunch of that kind of crap from the Dems. We don’t need it on this side.

I don’t believe you are right. Be bold in Christ! Read Acts chapter 4. Peter and John thrown in jail by the same guys that threw Jesus in jail. They vividly remember that just two months before what happened to the last guy these guys threw in jail...beat to within an inch of his life and then hung on a cross.
Yet when they were questioned, they didn’t say, “hmmm...maybe it is better to just apologize and live to see another day and maybe testify quietly over there in the corner or in a different city” No they flat out boldly said we will continue to testify to what we have seen and heard.

With that said, I think Santorum does need to focus on getting elected, and let’s face it, it is a popularity contest. So you are right in the sense that making inflammatory statements does not help. He could have accomplished the same thing without using the words “throw up” and picking on an assassinated president. Find a different person or quote to use. He would do well to learn from Newt. Check out how Newt handled the 2nd amendment. He gave a factual history lesson in front of the NRA.
Santorum could have simply focused on the fact that Obama is force state onto religion. Focus on the opponent. JFK is not the opponent. If you are going to be inflammatory focus on your opponent, if you are going to offend, make sure the ones you offend are your opponents strongest supporters...
basically stop bringing up subjects without Obama being the punchline.

He didn’t say that then idea of separation of Church and state made him sick. He said that the idea that this separation is ABSOLUTE makes him sick. The phase, after all, does not appear in the Constitution. It gained modern currency in an opinion of Hugo Black back in 1947. Black was supporting the Court’s decision to deny NJ the right to give Catholic parochial schools some of the aid that it gave to public schools. The aim of such aid was not to promote the Catholic religion but a fair distribution of tax money, since such schools relieved the public of a lot of expense and since their parents were, after all, tax-payers.

Black, a former KKK member, was very anti-Catholic and so in his opinion he encorporated much of the language of the “Blaine Amendment”, a constitutional amendment proposed by the politician James G. Blaine, that would deny to the states the right to fund church schools. This hit most specifically at Catholic schools since the protestant faith was taught in the public schools. The amendment was never ratified, but now Black decides to reinterpret the First Amendment as if that amendment were part of the Constitution. Amendment of the Constitution by judicial fiat.

What does this have to do with Santorum? Well, it led to the later Court decision to secularize the public schools, such as the decision to ban prayer from the schools, and going beyond that supporting the efforts of secularist groups to remove all religious symbols from public property. Furthermore, it now extends to public speech. Any opinion about public matters by religious persons based on their religious principles is now treated as "Irrational.” Thus if you are a politician who openly proclaims your faith, you are though to be a bit “balmy,” if not crazy. It goes beyond that. One may be an atheist and see that gay marriage makes no sense. Still he will be accused of “prejudice.” How DARE he base his opinion on facts in evidence?

Murder’s criminality is strictly an Old Testament law. Since anything in the Bible such as the 10 commandments is not allowed to influence any US law, when will murder be legalized so we are not influenced by any religion? Incest? Extortion? Fraud? Adultery? Homosexuality? Illegal drugs? Treason? They all are outlawed in Scripture.

If our criterion for removing any criminal behavior from legislation is based upon it being forbidden in Scripture, there is a long list of illegal activity which will now be decriminalized.