Santorum: Obama's phony theology, abortions, and more.

USA TODAY

Even though we live in a country where there shall be no religious test for public office, Santorum is trying to appeal to voters by claiming that Obama's theology is "phoney" - a "different kind of christianity".  

 

Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

 

Santorum also claims that, for some reason, since Obama is black, he shouldn't be deciding that a fetus is not fully human under the constitution.  "Remarkable for a black man".  Remarkable for a presidential candidate, where are fetuses discussed in the constitution again?  Let's play the "race card" to equate fetus rights (And embryo rights, and blastocyst rights, and fertilized egg rights) with the fight against racism.

Santorum claims that "Obamacare" prenatal testing is a way to save money by aborting potentially disabled fetuses.  Although, prenatal testing CAN be used to avoid having a baby with some devastating illnesses, like Tay-Sachs, and in some countries to avoid the dreaded XX Chromosome combination....  I know, I know, but this is a demagogic tool to influence voters.  There is not a sound-bite-able argument.

Going a bit further back (2008), Santorum speechified that-

"Satan is destroying America"

every institution in America has been destroyed by Satan; from academia to politics with even the church having fallen under His sway – not the Catholic church, of course, but “mainline Protestantism” which is in such “shambles” that it is not even Christian any longer.


Also noting that "this is a spiritual war"


People are voting for this  religious fanatic, a crusader to impose Catholic orthodoxy on the American public?  I think I need a xanax.

Views: 489

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Sorry, you'll have to have the US Constitution changed.  I really don't want to open up that can of worms!

The "no religious test" clause was put there as a result of members of the English Parliament having to swear an oath (Oath of Supremacy) that the King/Queen was the supreme governor in the temporal, spiritual and ecclesiastical realm, and that no foreign prince (read that as Pope) had any spiritual or ecclesiastic power.  This was obviously an anti-Catholic oath to keep Catholics out of office in Great Britain, and wasn't repealed until 1829. I too, do not want to see that part of the US Constitution repealed.

As to my own personal conscience in the voting booth, that's another matter. Religion, or lack thereof, is only one of the several tests I impose upon a candidate before he/she gets my vote.

Since the vast majority of Americans do not want to see an atheist in office, the most likely effect of trying to change that clause would be to require faith in god.  Oops.

Me neither.

I was cruising the T.V. channels the other day and happened upon a discussion on C-Span where they were showing some slides illustrating a very disturbing trend. I showed the break down of the congress based on voting records from 1980 to the present. There was a good deal of overlap during the early 80's indication a strong centrist congress with plenty of moderates. As the slides progressed to the current day they showed that there is virtually no consensus  or moderate overlap. Furthermore it showed a county map of the U.S. illustrating areas that  could be considered hard left or hard right areas of the country and those that were colored in white were swing or independent areas of the country. The maps of the 80's were substantially white. As you may have guessed the current maps showed almost no white indicating extreme polarization among the voting population.  What this unfortunately means is that divided government will no longer work.  For any congress and the president to legislate it will have to be winner take all. Unfortunately any big pull left or right will create blow back.  This is civil war shit in the making my friends.  Can you imagine a president Crap!

I worry about the same thing.  I wonder what happened to the middle, and how we can get it back.

That last line should read "Can you imagine a President Santorum with both houses of congress.Holy CRAP"

Well. Then if a Constitutional Amendment is out then how do we prevent "People are voting for this religious fanatic, a crusader to impose Catholic orthodoxy on the American public?" from occurring in the first place?

Given the state of today's scientific understanding don't you think some sort of testing is in order?

How would you propose an amendment that made it a requirement that our elected officials have much more than a Catholic High School understanding of the world and how it works? 

Just thinking out loud.

It seems to me that the broader, and underlying question you posed is, how do you prevent someone from voting for a person you don't approve of. The answer is, you don't. To do so would be in direct opposition and an antithesis of democracy. 

Rather than "preventing," the question should be, how do you "convince" someone not to vote for a particular individual. By shedding light on that person and their proposed policies. By actively participating in the electoral process, including getting the message out.

If Santorum were to get elected (which I seriously doubt he can pull off), he wouldn't be the first disaster to sit in the White House, and probably not the last. Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Warren Harding, Herbert Hoover, and most recently George W. Bush, are examples of less than stellar choices by the American public. 

Imposing a test for office is like prayer in public school. Whose test? What criteria? Which otherwise law abiding citizen do you prevent from holding office based upon that person's beliefs, which may differ from yours? It's a slippery and dangerous slop I don't want to get on.

You might want to look up "Democracy".  You don't prevent that.  All you can do is educate people on what the candidates stand for and hope that the majority agree with you.

Excellent points - democracy takes eternal vigilance, an educated public, schooled in critical thinking and wary of politicians in general.  By "politicians" I include ones who we vote for, pundits, religionists, and spokespersons for industry.  It also requires engagement by the populace, and sometimes they have to make a big mistake to learn the lessons of foolish voting.  I fear that the populace is more lazy, less critical, more easily influenced by "soundbites" and scapegoating, and more dangerous in voting practices than before, but when I read history, I think it's probably the same turkey, just a new coat of feathers.

I guess it is good that we don't live in democracy which would be majority rule. Being a republic offers some judicial interventions that would not exist in a democracy. An example of that here in North Carolina is that the state constitution here specifies that anyone who does not believe in God cannot hold public office. This actually came up recently because of some Ashville , N.C. residents wanting to recall their non-believer mayor based on this provision. Luckily the Federal Constitution trumps what the majority of North Carolinians want.

I was shocked to hear that 16 states enforced bans on inter racial marriage until 1967 when the supreme court had to rule on a Virginia case. While that ruling struck down those laws it wasn't until 2000 that Alabama finally officially repealed their law. Thank the Republic we are not a Democracy.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service