Atheist Nexus Logo

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: 501

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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

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've wondered what excuse Santorum gives for the Priests that molested children and the Cardinals and Bishops and possibly the Pope himself that tried to cover it up so I did some research...

He Blames the Victims: 

 In 2003, an Associated Press reporter asked him to clarify his original remarks about Boston. Once again, Rick stood by them, then went on to say this:

"In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it."

As for Santorum's statement above this is from a Research Study Conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice:
 

OFFENSE CHARACTERISTICS

• The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14. (link to study) http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PriestAbuseScandal.htm


Yeah Rick sounds like you agree with Martin Luther. What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.





 


 









Then he blames liberals:

Santorum Blames Liberals for Pedophile Priests

Just how whacked is Rick Santorum? Whacked enough to blame pedophilia by Catholic priests, protected from the police for decades by the church he belongs to, on liberals and “moral relativism.” He even thinks it’s hypocritical for liberals to criticize priests for raping children because they favor sexual freedom for adults:

It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning “private” moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

John, thanks for this link.  Really, the people of Pennsylvania should hang their heads in shame, that they elected such a religious zealot to the US Senate.  And the people who want him to be president?  For shame, for shame.

It is hard to believe that public offices have people like this. Supposed to be a college graduate, and I am thinking probably some law school training and still spouting that drivel? Damn!

When fascism comes to the United States it'll be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross and wearing a sweater vest.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service