Monday, February 27, 2012

Santorum hates JFK

Last week was amazing on Free Republic, and my commenters stepped up. I have about ten commenter-located threads heavy with the crazy to get through. This is one:

Rick Santorum, never one to focus on a talking point, went off this weekend about how JFK's famous speech saying he would not be beholden to the Pope made him sick, due to it's intimation of an absolute separation between church and state.

Seeing how many Freepers go "Theocracy now!" I was surprised how few in the thread calledl for Church rule. Mostly it was a vast and repetitive field of liberal strawmen, but there was some choice theocracy, as well as quality JFK hatred:

Lets start out with cripplecreek, the token theocrat:
In my opinion, even the best of churches have forgotten their part in making America. They actually believe that there’s some kind of constitutional restriction on political speech from the pulpit and can’t even consider the possibility that they themselves planted the seeds of the American revolution.
Dilbert San Diego understands the liberal mindset:
We hardly moved towards becoming a theocracy during the Bush years.

Liberals tend to hyperventilate and magnify their fears. Thus, a Christian in elected office to them means we are becoming a theocracy. Of course it’s absurd, but that’s how some liberals think.

I have never understood how liberals have these free-wheeling discussions about “separation of church and state”, and then take it to mean that public officials should not have a strong faith, or any faith.
What about Muslims?

RobbyS points out that priests would make good congressmen:
The Church is a voluntary organization. Why should it not have an hand in the operation of the state? The idea that the leaders of the Church , clerical or lay, are disqualified from participation in public affairs is a radical liberal or a socialist idea.
How you can get this from the language of Article VI or from the First Amendment is a mystery to me. Religious people and non-relgious have the same standing: they are citizens of the United States.
heye2monn rejects the premise that JFK was religious:
This whole string is based on a misunderstanding. JFK had no “church” to separate from the state. He was a Catholic in name only. He was not a papist lackey but instead a typical amoral liberal secularist who worshiped power more than God.

JFK spent more time cheating on his wife than observing his faith. He jeopardized the security of his nation by consorting with a gangster moll and East German spy. Most recently, we learned that he took advantage of a 19-year old intern and forced her to perform oral sex on an aide.
jwalsh07 has a rather uncommon view of JFK's short tenure:
What I’m saying is that JFK threw his religion, in fact all religion, under the bus hewing to the then liberal line that religion had no place in the public square. Hell he threw America under the bus when he removed missiles from germany after Kruschev threatened him with missiles in Cuba. He threw his wife and kids under the bus by shtupping the interns. He even threw the intern under the bus by pimping her out to his buddies at State. Black folk and civil rights? Under the bus.

I mean the guy was famous for this crap.

Cvengr feels oppressed cause there aren't enough crazy people in office:
I’m tired of fundamental secular humanists ramming their theology down the throats of the State.
"fundamental secular humanists." How does that work?

Cvengr also knows liberals want to get rid of every law that agrees with anything any church has ever said.
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.

4 comments:

  1. As an old fellow, I remember Falwell and Reagan and all that... and the 700 Club. This was a witches brew that just amazed me in those days. Was the Republican Party really that stupid?

    It seems the answer is yes and here we are in 2012 and the chickens have come home to roost.

    Here we are in the Little Depression and the Republican Party, the best campaigners I have seen in my lifetime, cannot get their shit together.

    Go ahead and campaign against women and Latinos. Oh, I don't know, maybe the Republicans can pull it off.

    Republicans, when the primaries are over and you have to run again to the middle, who is going to believe you? Latinos? Women?

    What happens if the Kenyan usurper wins again?

    LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  2. THat last comment really highlights the distorted frame of mind freepers have. Apparently, in their minds murder, adultery and such isn't bad because they hurt people, they're only bad because the Bible says so. Also, I'm pretty sure the Bible says incest is awwwwwright on more than one occasion, specifically in the story of a man named Lot that seems to be a freeper favourite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not to mention, half of the things on his list are perfectly legal in the U.S. Incest, adultery and homosexuality are all perfectly legal. Other things that are outlawed in the Bible are perfectly legal, too. There are also no laws against eating pork or shrimp. And the big one, blasphemy, is legal in the U.S.

      Delete
  3. "Liberals tend to hyperventilate and magnify their fears."

    The irony.. it burns!

    ReplyDelete