Just curious, would any of you vote for Santorum

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you feel that Santorum's religious beliefs are so strong that he cannot separate them from his duty as President, I can understand your reluctance to vote for him.

bingo

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

bingo

If you are going to take his word that what he claims to be his personal religious tenets are who he really is, then why will you not take his word that he will not impose his personal beliefs on others via government force as, he says, the Democrats do? He has stated personal beliefs on morality to groups of like minded people not as political doctrine to be implemented, but as like minded reasons for the deterioration of society. Is there a record of his imposing religious beliefs rather than ethical practices through legislation? Is he not allowed to have personal beliefs outside the political arena? Are those who are opposed to so-called conservative litmus tests for politicians in favor of such tests to weed out religious folks who actually believe their faith? How many polliticians have we accepted, even praised who have been outside the norm in their personal behaviour? Barney Frank is praised for his politics, not his sexual preferences. Bill Clinton is a major hero, but not for his sexual preferences. How is it that we can accept that great number of politicians in our history who have led disreputatable personal lives, yet a Santorum is a threat? Is it that others have preferred not to openly speak of who they really were or are? Does that comfort you to not know? If they lie or hide who they are, what else do they hide? Can you trust that the pretty words in which they couch their policies and legislation are the truth, or just expedient to get your vote? Whatever threat he presents is not in how he leads his own life or in his opinions on social mores, but in what he will support (i.e. the Constiltution).

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't have or feel a strong desire to vote for Santorum. But if he winds up being the nominee, he'll have my vote, not because of his personal religious beliefs, rather in order to stem, slightly, the tide in the direction we are heading in the way we are governed.

X 2

[Joe]

President Reagan could call up Tip O'Neill, and though the ideological gap between them was a chasm, they could privately hash out a negotiation that had some gains for both sides, and get stuff done in a timely fashion.
People with intractable belief systems, who won't budge or negotiate - shouldn't be in government, because that's how business is done. Ironically, these are the same people who hold Reagan up as their model. Reagan was a negotiating pragmatist, above all things. He would have told them they were nuts if they were not willing to engage in the give-and-take of government.

[Joe]

It's not a "so called religious litmus test."
It's a criteria without which a republican candidate can't get the backing of the Christian Conservative base, which means he can't get the the nomination. The Christian Conservatives are driving the bus. The Fiscal Conservatives are in the back shaking their heads, because they know they are going to lose over a constitutional amendment which is not going to be rolled back.

[Joe]

They just skipped over it in my son's Catholic School. The didn't cover any any of Darwin's findings, they didn't cover anything about the evolution of man, or any work relating to hominid man.
They covered the creationism in religion, and made it a point to say this was the Church's position.
I told my son not to argue because each kid is invited back each year at the school's discretion and unless he wanted to learn about survival of the fittest at West Warwick Junior High, just to let it slide on by. If carbon dating has not made then re-think their position, a 12-year old certainly is not going to change it.
There was still plenty of other science stuff to study.

Science is only fact when it does not contradict what the good book says, and if can be accepted without opening the wallet.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Joe

They just skipped over it in my son's Catholic School. The didn't cover any any of Darwin's findings, they didn't cover anything about the evolution of man, or any work relating to hominid man.
They covered the creationism in religion, and made it a point to say this was the Church's position.
.
.

WOW..."they should be lined up and summarily shot"..right?

I suppose if you want your kid taught darwinism and evolution you should teach it at home or send him to public school or perhaps a secularism class like someone else suggested but in reverse....yes?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

I suppose if you want your kid taught darwinism and evolution you should teach it at home or send him to public school or perhaps a secularism class like someone else suggested but in reverse....yes?

Absolutely!

[Joe]

Originally Posted by scottw

WOW..."they should be lined up and summarily shot"..right?

I suppose if you want your kid taught darwinism and evolution you should teach it at home or send him to public school or perhaps a secularism class like someone else suggested but in reverse....yes?

He concluded that approx 6,000 years ago, dinosaurs and people did not both walk the earth at the same time because the evidence points to it as an impossibility - probably from watching that unholy Discovery Channel.
I found that while holding my hands above my head, closing my eyes, and swaying back and forth while saying, "Praise him!" That I couldn't hear or see a goddamn thing.

[RIJIMMY]

wow, this sure got out of whack!

Debtuch - I heard santorum answer a few off the cuff questions and his response was deeply troubling to me. IMHO, it showed his character.
Like I beat my liberal friends over and over on 4 years ago - i cant see how anyone could have voted for Obama after hearing the Rev Wright rants. O never said those things, but its a character flaw that he didnt get up and walk out. For Santorum, his character flaw is that he believes in religious superiority, that religion makes you better. I disagree strongly with that. All religions have a superiority complex built into them.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

wow, this sure got out of whack!

For Santorum, his character flaw is that he believes in religious superiority, that religion makes you better. I disagree strongly with that. All religions have a superiority complex built into them.

RIJIMMY, every study ever done, clearly shows that people of faith consider themselves to be happier than atheists. We are much more likely to describe our lives as full and rich, than athiests. Our kids are more likely to succeed than kids of athiests. We give WAY more time and money to charity than atheists. We get divorced far less often than athiests, we commit way less crime than athiests.

Am I saying that all athiests are bad? Nope. Am I saying that all religious people are good? Nope. I'm saying that, on average, having faith adds a whole lot of positive things to one's life that are difficult (though not impossible) to acquire otherwise. That's what Santorum is saying. And it's basically irrefutable. Liberals HATE that fact, but it's fact nonetheless.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

RIJIMMY, every study ever done, clearly shows that people of faith consider themselves to be happier than atheists. We are much more likely to describe our lives as full and rich, than athiests. Our kids are more likely to succeed than kids of athiests. We give WAY more time and money to charity than atheists. We get divorced far less often than athiests, we commit way less crime than athiests.

Am I saying that all athiests are bad? Nope. Am I saying that all religious people are good? Nope. I'm saying that, on average, having faith adds a whole lot of positive things to one's life that are difficult (though not impossible) to acquire otherwise. That's what Santorum is saying. And it's basically irrefutable. Liberals HATE that fact, but it's fact nonetheless.

Change a few words above and you could be writing for the Taliban!
Who said anything about atheists? You could believe in god and not be religious. Religion is man made, run by man, all rules created by man. I've studied religion all my life, fascinated by it, but I can never follow an organized religion. I know to much.
I dont for a minute believe someone who is religious is morally better than someone who is not or someone who is an atheist.
But here is what I do know, and this is a fact. 12 yrs of catholic school and asked many leaders of the church and professors this to be sure
FACT - Catholics believe that the sacrament of communion is the ACTUAL body and blood of JC, not a symbol, but actual body and blood. That every mass an ACTUAL miracle takes place and the host is turned into body, then you EAT the body of JC.
Thats the fact.
My opinion? Anyone that believes that is insane. Period. Thus I feel intellectually superior to most hard core catholics. (ps. most catholics dont believe that and dont follow many church rules, but its a FACT that the church does believe and teach that)
So, to each his own.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Change a few words above and you could be writing for the Taliban!
Who said anything about atheists? You could believe in god and not be religious. Religion is man made, run by man, all rules created by man. I've studied religion all my life, fascinated by it, but I can never follow an organized religion. I know to much.
I dont for a minute believe someone who is religious is morally better than someone who is not or someone who is an atheist.
But here is what I do know, and this is a fact. 12 yrs of catholic school and asked many leaders of the church and professors this to be sure
FACT - Catholics believe that the sacrament of communion is the ACTUAL body and blood of JC, not a symbol, but actual body and blood. That every mass an ACTUAL miracle takes place and the host is turned into body, then you EAT the body of JC.
Thats the fact.
My opinion? Anyone that believes that is insane. Period. Thus I feel intellectually superior to most hard core catholics. (ps. most catholics dont believe that and dont follow many church rules, but its a FACT that the church does believe and teach that)
So, to each his own.

Ypo sem to have posted this on the wrong thread...

"Change a few words above and you could be writing for the Taliban!"

Wrong. You've never heard me say men should be killed for not believeing what I believe, or for having beards not to required length. I don't murder innocent people, I don't enslave women.

"I can never follow an organized religion. I know to much."

So you are assuming that the more knowledgable a person is, the less need he has for religion. That's a big assumption on your part.

"I dont for a minute believe someone who is religious is morally better than someone who is not or someone who is an atheist"

Than you're not nearly as knowledgable as you think you are. As I said, there are exceptions. There are horrible people who call themselves religious. But if someone is, say, a true devout Catholic, that almost necessarily means they are a good person.

" I feel intellectually superior to most hard core catholics."

You are entitled to your illusions. Most liberals feel that a mass murderer has a greater right to live than an unborn baby. Thus I feel intellectually and morally superior to every single hard-core liberal.

"Catholics believe that the sacrament of communion is the ACTUAL body and blood of JC, not a symbol, but actual body and blood."

I guess you know more than me, I'm just a Eucharistic minister who hands out communion every week at Catholic mass. I don't believe I'm actually cannibalizing the body of a person who lived 2000 years ago. Nor do I believe I'm simply eating a meaninglesss wafer. It's a symbolic gesture of my willingness, and desire, to receive Christ into my life.

You can paint us all as a bunch of insane pedophiles, as liberals like to do. We are human beings, menaing we are imperfect, and we screw up royally sometimes. But in the end, our religion motivates us to do some great things. At non-religious hospitals, for instance, they will refuse to treat you (for non-emergencies) if you cannot pay. At CAtholic hospitals, if you can't pay, you get treated for free, even if you aren't Catholic.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I guess you know more than me, I'm just a Eucharistic minister who hands out communion every week at Catholic mass. I don't believe I'm actually cannibalizing the body of a person who lived 2000 years ago. Nor do I believe I'm simply eating a meaninglesss wafer. It's a symbolic gesture of my willingness, and desire, to receive Christ into my life.

My understanding is that RIJIMMY is correct. It's beyond a simple symbolic gesture, you're supposed to believe you're taking in Christ.

It's also why I'm (as a baptized Episcopalian) not invited to take communion at a Catholic service. The do offer hot cider in the basement though.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

You could believe in god and not be religious. Religion is man made, run by man, all rules created by man. I've studied religion all my life, fascinated by it, but I can never follow an organized religion. I know to much.
I dont for a minute believe someone who is religious is morally better than someone who is not or someone who is an atheist.
FACT - Catholics believe that the sacrament of communion is the ACTUAL body and blood of JC, not a symbol, but actual body and blood. That every mass an ACTUAL miracle takes place and the host is turned into body, then you EAT the body of JC.
Thats the fact.
My opinion? Anyone that believes that is insane. Period. Thus I feel intellectually superior to most hard core catholics. (ps. most catholics dont believe that and dont follow many church rules, but its a FACT that the church does believe and teach that)
So, to each his own.

which god do you believe in? do you believe in the God of the Bible? if so, what would you know of him without the Bible? There are many "man-made"religions that place their "faith" in many forms of "higher power" and not necessarily in a god...if you believe in the God of the Bible, do you study religion through the Bible or the Bible through religion..there's a difference...and do you apply that study to other "religions"...there is a difference there as well....if you believe in the God of the Bible, do you believe that he created you and all that you see? If you accept that remarkable ability ...do you not believe that wine and host could not be the body and blood of Jesus and representative of his sacrafice, is it insane?....I'm pretty sure that Jesus was quoted as saying "this is my body..... this is my blood....do this in memory of me"..I'm happy to provide the full quote should Spence request it.....do you believe in Jesus as Saviour?...what do you hope for when your time here is concluded and do you think any of it is tied to what the Bible teaches? I ask these questions because many of the things that you say seem contradictory when it comes to your belief....maybe you know too much

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

wow, this sure got out of whack!

Debtuch - I heard santorum answer a few off the cuff questions and his response was deeply troubling to me. IMHO, it showed his character.
Like I beat my liberal friends over and over on 4 years ago - i cant see how anyone could have voted for Obama after hearing the Rev Wright rants. O never said those things, but its a character flaw that he didnt get up and walk out. For Santorum, his character flaw is that he believes in religious superiority, that religion makes you better. I disagree strongly with that. All religions have a superiority complex built into them.

Do you, seriously, not see how anyone could have voted for Obama after the Wright rants? I had never thought that the association Obama had with Wright or the several other radicals in his life, including his mother, would be enough to stop those who want what he and his party stand for. Being black, no doubt, helped him defeat Hillary, and being Democrat was enough to hold the base, and running against Bush/Mcain/mostlyBush and a collapsing economy
was a strong enough ticket for those who want big and bigger government and thos who were disgusted with Bush.

Voting for a candidate is so much more than voting for his character. You vote for his party, its apparatus, its mission and political philosophy. And the latter is far more consequential than his character. If that great middle, the independents, vote merely on the basis of character or some other personal disgust with the previous administration, they also make the mistake of "voting for the man" rather than his true political mission.

I don't know what off-the-cuff remarks Santorum made that deeply troubled you. Were they mission statements to the effect that he would work diligently to fulfill as President?

What do you do if both candidates in the general election lack the character that you demand?

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Do you, seriously, not see how anyone could have voted for Obama after the Wright rants? I had never thought that the association Obama had with Wright or the several other radicals in his life, including his mother, would be enough to stop those who want what he and his party stand for. Being black, no doubt, helped him defeat Hillary, and being Democrat was enough to hold the base, and running against Bush/Mcain/mostlyBush and a collapsing economy
was a strong enough ticket for those who want big and bigger government and thos who were disgusted with Bush.

Voting for a candidate is so much more than voting for his character. You vote for his party, its apparatus, its mission and political philosophy. And the latter is far more consequential than his character. If that great middle, the independents, vote merely on the basis of character or some other personal disgust with the previous administration, they also make the mistake of "voting for the man" rather than his true political mission.

I don't know what off-the-cuff remarks Santorum made that deeply troubled you. Were they mission statements to the effect that he would work diligently to fulfill as President?

What do you do if both candidates in the general election lack the character that you demand?

im not going to tell you or explain how people could have voted for O after hearing Rev Wright. I said I cant see how they could. not for me to explain
I've stated above what Santorum said, I cant vote for someone that believes they are morally superior because of their religion.

I wont argue w/Jim, he is entitled to his opinion. my whole family were devout catholics, most are divorced, many cheated on their spouses. They are imperfect. we all are. But are they happier and more successful, not in my experience. Jim - check me on the sacrament of communion - you'll see Im right.

Oh - and one more. You frequently ( and I agree with you) state the fact that states/cities with the lowest incomes and most poverty are always democratic. Change that to religious and look at the global population. The countries with the most devout religious followers are also the poorest, most backwards countries on the globe.

, literally

[RIJIMMY]

For Jim -

First written by an archbishop

Is The Eucharist Really Christ's Body and Blood?

reviewed for catholic doctrine

Christ in the Eucharist | Catholic Answers


http://www.americancatholic.org/News.../CU/ac0996.asp
I told ya so!

[Joe]

I saw the bishop last week before school. He was talking to the kids as they were lining up - he shows up every few months. Bishops are the only people left who can really pull off wearing a cape - that's gotta be some kind of miracle.

[zimmy]

"Federal money? The Federal Gvt. has its own money? "
You understand the context of what I was saying, right? Go vote for Santorum in the primary please. It is best for the country if he wins the primary.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

"Federal money? The Federal Gvt. has its own money? "
You understand the context of what I was saying, right? Go vote for Santorum in the primary please. It is best for the country if he wins the primary.

Yes, I understand the context of what you where saying. I was pointing out that the entire context is wrong to begin with. The context of the Federal Government unconstitutionally usurping State and individual rights and powers is the problem, not just that all the politicians, including Santorum, operate in that context. In that context what ANY congressperson or president does is beyond the power that is consented by the governed. In that context, they are all acting as dictatorial bureaucrats. And I was more curious that you were objecting to Santorum's attempt to legislate in that context, but not to the actual existing laws and regulations that comprise that entire context and make possible what you see as some danagerous Santorum ploy.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And I was more curious that you were objecting to Santorum's attempt to legislate in that context, .

Yes, I look at it from the same perspective if he were Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan, whatever. I am more concerned by his agenda to incorporate his religious beliefs into education than the government's attempts to raise the standards of education. I agree, both are wrong. Only one is fundamentally scary to me.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Yes, I look at it from the same perspective if he were Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan, whatever. I am more concerned by his agenda to incorporate his religious beliefs into education than the government's attempts to raise the standards of education. I agree, both are wrong. Only one is fundamentally scary to me.

If you think what he attempted is scarier than the vehicle that allows him to attempt it, perhaps you're not seeing the forest for the trees.

The Founders intentionally precluded the central government from legislating or interfering not only in religious matters, but the great bulk of matters that pertain to our personal lives and the function of our local and State governments. It was a pre-eminent concern that the central power was limited to specific functions that would solidify the union but not infringe on State and individual rights. They had just freed themselves from a tyrannical government, and there was a great fear of unchecked central power, so they carefully, purposefully, crafted a form of government that would prevent such tyranny. What has evolved is the government they feared. The only reason Santorum could propose what offends you, is what the Federal Government has become. There are no ground rules, no constitution defining what it cannot do. It has abandoned the Constitution it pretends to follow, or that we think it does. There are no limits to its power except the fear that it may offend too many of us. It has the power to tell you what you can grow in your garden, how much, and whether you can sell it, and how you do so. It believes it can tell you what to buy. Santorum's attempt to introduce a counter balance to such power by instilling in our youth the possibility that there is another power and purpose in this life than that of the Federal Government is puny compared to what that government has become. That you can feel that Santorum's gambit is fundamentally scary, but that what the government has become and which allows him to attempt it, is not fundamentally scary, is puzzling.

[Raven]

SANTORUM should run as Romney's VP
at the last minute

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Raven

SANTORUM should run as Romney's VP
at the last minute

Marco Rubio will be the VP pick, regardless of who wins the primary. Rubio might be the most valuable VP in the history of presidential politics. He gives the GOP Florida, which is a huge swing state. He energizes the conservative, Tea Party wing of the GOP, which Romney especially would need. And most importantly, he gives the GOP a shot at the Hispanic vote, which is invaluable. If Rubio convinces Hispanics to lean to the GOP, watch how fast liberals change their tune on immigration.

I'm personally not a huge Romney fan. But a Romney-Rubio ticket will have the best shot at defeating Obama.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Marco Rubio will be the VP pick, regardless of who wins the primary. Rubio might be the most valuable VP in the history of presidential politics. He gives the GOP Florida, which is a huge swing state. He energizes the conservative, Tea Party wing of the GOP, which Romney especially would need. And most importantly, he gives the GOP a shot at the Hispanic vote, which is invaluable. If Rubio convinces Hispanics to lean to the GOP, watch how fast liberals change their tune on immigration.

I'm personally not a huge Romney fan. But a Romney-Rubio ticket will have the best shot at defeating Obama.

I think Christie will be the VP pick, he has been out pushing for Romney

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I think Christie will be the VP pick, he has been out pushing for Romney

Christie is a darling of the GOP, due to his willingness to stand up to public labor unions. However, he is very liberal on some social issues, not sure if that turns off the power brokers of the party. And NJ doesn't carry as many electoral votes as FL. I agree Christie is likely on the short list.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I think Christie will be the VP pick, he has been out pushing for Romney

I wish, but knowing him as being Governor he's not the type of man that wants
to be second in command.
He takes no prisoners, says what he means and
means what he says but has a knack for negotiation.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I wish, but knowing him as being Governor he's not the type of man that wants
to be second in command.
He takes no prisoners, says what he means and
means what he says but has a knack for negotiation.

I like when he went ballistic over that woman who called in and challenged him on cutting education when he sends his kids to private school...real leadership there

And now Santorum thinks Obama is a "snob" because he wants our kids to go to college.

-spence

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I wish, but knowing him as being Governor he's not the type of man that wants
to be second in command.

You mean hearing him say it on the interview?