Parry writes: "Instead of embracing Kennedy's support for the separation of church and state, which has spared America much of the religious violence that has marred other parts of the world, Santorum espouses a chip-on-the-shoulder notion that by not embracing the Bible as a governing philosophy the government is picking on fundamentalist Christians."
President John F. Kennedy, 02/10/61. (photo: file)
Santorum 'Throws Up' on JFK and Obama
28 February 12
Click here to watch the speech by then-candidate John F. Kennedy that current candidate Rick Santorum has targeted with his scorn. -- JPS/RSN
ith Republican presidential front-runner Rick Santorum, it's hard to decide what is more alarming, his know-nothingism or his dishonesty. In recent days, he has put on displays of both, decrying President Barack Obama's advocacy for higher learning and distorting John F. Kennedy's 1960 appeal for religious tolerance.
Like many on the Right, Santorum also selectively disregards the founding principles of the United States, which include government neutrality on religion. In one speech, Santorum said he "almost threw up" when reading Kennedy's reiteration of that principle more than a half century ago when JFK was seeking to become the first Catholic president.
Instead of embracing Kennedy's support for the separation of church and state, which has spared America much of the religious violence that has marred other parts of the world, Santorum espouses a chip-on-the-shoulder notion that by not embracing the Bible as a governing philosophy the government is picking on fundamentalist Christians.
Of course, we've seen a version of this religious "victimhood" before, when Fox News and other right-wing media outlets concocted the absurd notion of a "War on Christmas" despite the annual extravagance of a month-long celebration in honor of the mythological birth of the baby Jesus, ending in the nation's only official religious holiday.
The reality is that Americans of all religious views - while out buying their groceries or riding in elevators - have no choice but to listen to Christmas carols. They watch their cities decked out in red-and-green Christmas colors. To state the obvious, there is no comparable celebration for Yom Kippur or Ramadan.
But fundamentalist Christians still detect a "war" in the renaming of public-school "Christmas concerts" as "winter concerts" and similar concessions to the fact that America also is home to Jews, Muslims, atheists and people of other religious persuasions.
What Santorum is now doing on the campaign trail is retrofitting the "war on Christmas" into a more general "war on religion." In recent speeches, he has accused President Obama of following a "phony theology," i.e. "not a theology based on the Bible."
Santorum's argument plays on two levels - first, raising fresh doubts that Obama is a real Christian (when many right-wing Christians still insist that he's a Muslim) and second, maintaining that Obama's promotion of environmentalism is somehow an assault on Christianity.
Santorum wants Americans to see legislation aimed at protecting the Earth and Nature as a violation of the Bible's granting Man dominion over the planet, as if God bestowed on Man the right to plunder the Earth to the point of making it uninhabitable for future generations.
Some of Santorum's reckless views on the environment fit with the fundamentalist Christian notion that the End Times are near and thus the Earth's resources can be used without regard to the future. (Note to the campaign press: before Santorum becomes the U.S. president, you might want to ask about his views on the End Times.)
No College for You
Santorum is contemptuous, too, of Obama's appeals to America's youth to seek higher education so they can fill the high-tech jobs of the 21st Century. Obama has asked "every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training."
But Santorum sees in that a dark conspiracy to indoctrinate American youth away from "faith" as well as an example of Obama's elitism. Santorum told one campaign crowd, "President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob!"
In that advice from Obama about higher education, the former Pennsylvania senator detected a slight against "good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to tests that aren't taught by some liberal college professor."
Santorum then advocated that Americans seek out other alternatives for upgrading their skills. "There's technical schools, there's additional training, vocational training," he said, although that would seem to be no different than Obama's frequent touting of community colleges that partner with companies on job training.
Except that when Obama makes these appeals - like when he addresses students at the start of the school year and urges them to do their homework - his agenda must be to brainwash the children into some atheistic dystopia where true believers are hunted down by black helicopters and delivered to reeducation camps.
The more Santorum speaks the more it appears that his world view has been shaped by right-wing Christian paranoia that can be found in some fundamentalist novels rather than in the real world.
The truth is that the Americans most discriminated against for their religious views are probably atheists, perhaps even more so than Muslims and Jews. Despite the constitutional mandate in Article VI that "no religious Test shall ever be required" for any public office, it's hard to find an avowed atheist in any elected government post anywhere.
Hard Times at Penn State
However, in Santorum World, the Christians are the persecuted ones. In an appearance on ABC-TV's "This Week" on Sunday, Santorum was still recalling his victimhood several decades ago while attending Penn State.
"I went through it at Penn State," Santorum told host George Stephanopoulos. "You talk to most kids who go to college who are conservatives, and you are singled out, you are ridiculed, you are - I can tell you personally, I know that, you know, we - I went through a process where I was docked for my conservative views. This is sort of a regular routine.
"You know the statistic that at least I was familiar with from a few years ago - I don't know if it still holds true but I suspect it may even be worse - that 62 percent of kids who enter college with some sort of faith commitment leave without it. This is not a neutral setting."
But, of course, it may actually be "a neutral setting." It may just be that some of the myths taught by religious fundamentalists don't withstand objective scrutiny in an environment of factual learning - and in different circumstances, most Americans would cheer that fact.
For instance, if Muslims trained in fundamentalist Islamist madrassas went to a cosmopolitan university and learned real history - like, say, reading about the suffering of Jews in the Holocaust - that presumably would be a good thing because it would increase tolerance and understanding.
Or, let's say that Christian children who believe in Santa Claus attend a public school and learn from other children that there is no Santa Claus. We might feel sad about that development, but it would not mean the public school was not "a neutral setting." The hard truth is there is no Santa Claus.
So, what would a President Santorum want? An American system of higher education that is the Christian equivalent of an Islamic fundamentalist madrassa, schools that indoctrinate American youth in the Faith and tell them to view Reason as the temptation of the Devil?
The Founders' Wisdom
The Christian world has seen this script before - and it does not end well. Indeed, it is what motivated America's Founders to adopt the First Amendment's joint edict that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Founders were well aware of the dark side of official religions.
By enacting the First Amendment, James Madison and other constitutional framers were not prohibiting the involvement of religious people in the public square, but they were saying that the government must remain neutral on matters of religion.
That is what John F. Kennedy was recalling in his famous 1960 address pleading for religious tolerance toward Catholics, the speech that Santorum said made him almost vomit. On the campaign trail recently, Santorum noted that "earlier in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up. You should read the speech."
Asked by Stephanopoulos "why did it make you throw up," Santorum responded: "Because the first line, first substantive line in the speech says, ‘I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute.' I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.
"The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country. … Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, ‘no, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate.' Go on and read the speech.
"[Kennedy says] ‘I will have nothing to do with faith. I won't consult with people of faith.' It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960. And I went down to Houston, Texas, 50 years almost to the day [after Kennedy's speech, which also was delivered in Houston], and gave a speech and talked about how important it is for everybody to feel welcome in the public square. …"
Stephanopoulos: "You think you wanted to throw up?"
Santorum: "Well, yes, absolutely, to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live in that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?
"That makes me throw up and it should make every American who is seen from the President [Obama], someone who is now trying to tell people of faith that you will do what the government says, we are going to impose our values on you, not that you can't come to the public square and argue against it, but now we're going to turn around and say we're going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square."
Not True
Of course, Kennedy said no such thing in 1960. His speech did not declare that "people of faith … have no role in the public square." Kennedy himself was a practicing Catholic as is Santorum. Kennedy also collaborated with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., a person of faith who clearly operated in the public square. It's odd, too, that Santorum, while speaking as a person of faith in the public square, would say that a person of faith can't speak in the public square.
Indeed, there are countless examples of people of faith operating in America's public square, both as advocates and officeholders. Indeed, as mentioned earlier, probably the Americans most excluded from the public square are atheists and other non-believers who generally are punished by voters for not having a religious faith.
What Kennedy was seeking in his speech on Sept. 12, 1960, was an acceptance by voters of candidates based on their character and positions, not their religion. Facing accusations that he might take orders from the Vatican, Kennedy asserted that he would strictly respect the founding American principle of separation of church and state.
In part, Kennedy said, "But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured - perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in - for that should be important only to me - but what kind of America I believe in.
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
"For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew - or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you - until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
"Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
"That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe - a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
"I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test - even by indirection - for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.
"I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none; who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him; and whose fulfillment of his presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.
"This is the kind of America I believe in, and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a 'divided loyalty,' that we did ‘not believe in liberty,' or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the ‘freedoms for which our forefathers died.'
"And in fact ,this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died, when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches; when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom; and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey. But no one knows whether they were Catholic or not, for there was no religious test at the Alamo.
"I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress, on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself) - instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948, which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.
"I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion.
"And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France, and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.
"But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.
"Whatever issue may come before me as president - on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject - I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
"But if the time should ever come - and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible - when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.
"But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.
"If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser - in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
"But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the presidency - practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can ‘solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help me God.'"
So what does it say about one of the Republican presidential frontrunners that Kennedy's speech from 1960 would make him almost throw up?
For more on related topics, see Robert Parry's "Lost History," "Secrecy & Privilege" and "Neck Deep," now available in a three-book set for the discount price of only $29. For details, click here.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, "Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush," was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, "Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq" and "Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth'" are also available there.
JFK's Speech on Religion and Politics
Part 1: Separation of Church and State (1960)
JFK's Speech on Religion and Politics
Part 2: Questions and Answers (1960)
Videos of John F. Kennedy's Speech on Religion and Politics, September 12, 1960, courtesy of The Film Archive.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 24 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 24 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 25 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
The fact that Santorum is willing to twist and make things up about a well known speech and quote telling of his obtuse view.
That man and the likes of him don't belong in office, not because of their religion, but because of their blinds and extremism.
So what to do when the organization becomes corrupt and stale? For example, in Islam there is no amount of internal reform that could ever save this religion from the corruption of the priests. The same can be said for many Christian sects.
The only answer is for the Great Redeemer Himself to appear. Any takers on when that will occur? My guess is, don't wait for the religious leaders to tell you.
Mickey Grant
There is nothing unfortunate about it. You are free to be a thinking human, willing to consider all facts and view.
I say, "Bravo."
The flaw in his logic, as noted above, is that there are myriad faiths and denominations with their own view of God. And to tell them that the "one true path" is that of narrowly interpreted and partially revisionist Christian fundamentalism is a head on challenge to their faith. People have fought countless wars over whether "their" God was the "real" God. A political candidate, by comparison, is not likely to be long regarded as a major obstacle.
It's strange, this reinvention of JFK as "The Catholic President". If we were to accept it, we would also have to call Jimmy Carter "The Baptist President", Richard Nixon "The Quaker President" (now there's an irony), and Thomas Jefferson "The Deist President".
Mr. Santorum had best watch where he throws up, as an America he wishes to vomit upon is unlikely to ask for more of the same.
In these nitwits' case, they puff up on spewing shameful filth and sacrilege at their country, its Constitution, the values and cultures and customs of the people who, historically, once made it great. The more appalling and disgusting to intelligence and dignity, the more drunk on their power to insult us they become.
Fact is, I want to throw up on Santorum, and do much nastier on his claim to "Christianity." What a cheap, sleazy low-life buncha nothing -- running to be President of the United States. What a friggin' shit-head.
Good taste would say a sweet 80-year-old female should "eschew" such language.
But then, what else would we call a guy so despicable? What I think, his mother puked and thought he was a baby.
Gee, I'm sorry. Do YOU know of any Ayatollahs or Imams who are OPEN MINDED, Believe in HUMAN as well as CIVIL Rights and treat women as something MORE than chattel? If you do, please name one. I think Santorum would fit right in with ANY of the ones we have seen and heard of in the News lately.
Any behavior can be misinterpreted. Try to not blanket the entire of Islam as radical and far from open minded.
"Gee, I'm sorry. Do YOU know of any Ayatollahs or Imams who are OPEN MINDED, Believe in HUMAN as well as CIVIL Rights and treat women as something MORE than chattel? If you do, please name one."
As with some of the Christian groups I cited, many Muslim women gladly wear the signature of Islam, just as the women in the Christian groups never cut their hair or wear anything other than long skirts.
Certainly, there are radical Muslims who subjugate women. But there are thousands who do not and their women wear that head scarf with pride, just as many Christian women wear a cross around the neck on a chain. Or cross themselves, if Catholic.
Again. As I said previously, I have NO problem with anyone who practices his or her faith in a loving, kind and non-oppressive way consistent with the teachings of Christ, or Buddha or Mohammed. It is the UNREASONABLE, FANATICAL, "DO as I say, NOT as I do" Imams and Ayahtollahs, call them what you will, that I have a problem with. What part of my reply don't you understand? DO you know of ANY reasonable Imams or Ayatollahs who have preached Love and Kindness towards their fellow humans? People of EVERY Race, Color and Creed are ENTITLED to practice the Religion of their choice, FREE of coercion, intimidation and violence. Sadly, not all who "practice" adhere to what they preach.
But the worst of it is, he wants to cram his insanity down everyone else's throat!
Either way, to paraphrase Dean Wormer in 'Animal House', "Deaf, nuts, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."
Especially for a candidate for POTUS!
That says it not only for religion but for the 99% of Americans that don't have the money to buy the politicians of America. Get the money out of American politics.
Last night, Chris Matthews cackled on camera about how terrific it'll be after Super Tuesday if there's no clear front-runner, if Newt comes back and wins a few southern states, mixes it up with Willard and Rick, etc. The cynical media wants a mindless contest down to the wire, no matter how toxic the rhetoric, how corrosive the effect on the rest of us. A foregone conclusion is their last choice, when they have no other. The fundamentally sobering prospect is that Santorum could gain traction, HAS gained traction, enough to put him and his twisted vision in the daily spotlight and propel him forward as a "serious" contender. However, I still believe at some point he's gonna stall in mid-flight, crash and burn. He simply can't be the nominee. For now, the remedy is to keep him out of your head, if you can stand it. We're conditioned to watch all this crap unfold in all media, like a rat swimming through a maze to find the cheese. The more we watch these guys, and by extension their party, trash history, women, the Constitution and common sense, the more confident we should be that Obama will prevail. Rick is the canary in the coal mine.
It is embarrassing and hard to explain to friends in other countries, that the U.S. is being sucked into dictator rhetoric. They can see it by merely comparing John F. Kennedy to Rick Santorum. As I say, embarrassing and insulting.
-- ahh, my faith in all those red, commie, liberal higher educators has been restored. If freaks like the christian taliban's golden boy hate them, they must be doing something right...
Santorum: Binge on hate, purge on tolerance...
Could it just be a process of becoming an adult, leaving your parent's nest, thinking for yourself?
duality. The fact that he's arrogant, misinformed, disrespectful of others & manipulative makes him dangerous as a political candidate. What does it say about the state of our society today that he "appeals to the hateful, lowest form of the populace" and is leading in some of the polls?
Now as far as religions being tax exempt I think they shouldn't be especially because these radical right wing Protestant ministers do preach politics from the pulpit and tell their followers who to vote for .
They shouldn't have it both ways.
Personally I think it was a big mistake to make churches and religious organizations tax exempt. Why did they ? If we really have separation of church and state then we should have no influence over church affairs at all and this includes giving them a tax exemption.If they as a religion survive it should be from their own effort not from a free ride by our government.
They say they are the ones being persecuted ? Thats a joke when we have to give our tax dollars to the government while they don't have to. They actually have been given special treatment by our government and personally I think this should end !
Now they think they should be our government .
Give them an inch they will take a mile. I say cut them off, they are rich enough off of the ignorance of their followers to pay their taxes like any of us !
They are no better than we are and shouldn't be treated any differently .
on a lighter note...have you heard "frothy's new fight song? "you-make-me wanna/(wretch) throw up,now/(wretch) come on, now..."
PSSSSt - Rick Hey - your listening? Freedom OF your religion necessarily entails freedom FROM others religion.
Can you imagine how the Republicans and conservatives generally would have reacted had he governed more like a liberal/progres sive? Their rhetoric for a MODERATE Democrat makes him out to be extreme beyond the pale. Had he governed as a liberal, it's likely far worse would haste transpired.
1. You are so far out on the fringes and completely out of touch with the realities of our era that Barack Obama would defeat you in a landslide.
2. You are so far out there - along with a few millions others - that your candidacy would shine a bright light on the enormous chasm between you and the vast majority of Americans, including Obama. We the people would have a very clear choice.
Given this stark choice, I was willing to take a chance that America would handily reject you (as in throw you up and out) in a huge landslide, enable the Dems to gain the 60+ Senate seats, take back the House and expunge (big word, Rick) you and what you represent for at least the next 10-15 years and give us a chance to effectively deal with the truly enormous challenges, and opportunities, facing us and our children's future.
However, Rick - you have shown yourself to be even crazier and more dangerous than most of us assumed. Throwing up on Kennedy's speech, telling children that a college education is elitist, continuing to simply lie - you have flown off the charts in your lunacy and I can no longer support your candidacy - even for the Rs. Perhaps "Ken Doll" Romney who holds no values except to be president is it?
But why should anyone be surprised, first Sen. San Salvador is possibly the most unfiltered by the homogenizers (aka Consultants) in recent memory. But more to the point, his interpretation of the Constitution is consistent with how a Fundamentalist interprets the Bible or whatever Holy Book they use. Any interpretation is forced into fitting their preconceived view of the world.
That is in itself entirely consistent with the current American Conservative movement, backwards. Instead of reading the Constitution (or the Bible), then discussing what the clause says, how did it come about, what was its purpose, how does that clause relate to the current world, are there any areas where it used to apply, but no longer does, what about looking at it from another angle, etc.
What the Righties and Sen. Superfluous do is say, how can that fit with what I believe.
Intellectually lazy and dangerous to creating a vibrant, free, nation. The same of course is true religiously, but the good Sen. Snuffleupagus and I do not share the same Religion and I don't feel the need to judge his beliefs.
Frightening.
Sorry, if you Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. out there have a bit of a problem with this. That's just the way the cookie crumbles, I guess. You can't expect God to revisit this issue; he's infallible, remember?
Oh, and you Buddhists out there: you're really up the creek since you don't even believe in a creator God! You should seriously consider migrating to another country before the forced expulsion.
He is about the business of separating from the general population the largest possible group of impressionable followers to vote for him and do whatever else he exhorts them to do. He will say and do anything to further that aim.
He attracts people inclined by their personalities and personal histories to see themselves as victims. Self-styled victims lack compassion for others. They make the best militias.
No Santa Claus...??? Damn!
nice try Santorum. this guy can't open his mouth without betraying his idiocy
RSS feed for comments to this post