If he wants to run the country on ANY religious values, he's violating the Constitution IMO, not "upholding" it as it says in the oath of affice.

hey, i wasnt arguing that, just making sure the labels of said values were where they deserved to be.

(i disagree with your point, but that is besides my point)

_________________
PSA: I am an overly sarcastic person. If you take me at my word, then i will most likely anger and offend you.

Fair enough on the labels, but I'd like to explore the second comment.

What exactly do you disagree with?

I disagree with the idea(at least, how im reading it. if i read in error, please correct me) that a politican's values, and as such his politics, should have no ties to his religion whatsoever. You should be able to hold to your beliefs and your opinions no matter where they come from, be they secular or religious.

I guess where im trying to get with this, is that i take issue with the idea that, just because an idea or belief that one has happens to be because of his religion, that it should be thrown out immediately, no matter how good or bad it is. Politics, at least to me, is a basis of your personal opinions on how best to lead the country. How you form your beliefs, be it religious or secular, should have no bearing on if you should be allowed to publicly hold them or not. YOu vote for the person that you agree with the most, and as your representative(voted by majority) should represent their electors by the values and ideas that they were elected on, because that is what the people liked in him, be it religious or secular.

Also, for me, the seperation of church and state means that there cannot be a state run church, and the church should not directly influence the state by the religious leaders dictating policy to the state. However, I firmly believe that the church should influence their adherents into following their teachings, both in public and private life. And this, i believe respects the seperation of church and state, because the influence is on the individual, and not the state. Otherwie, we would be, in my view, be violating the exact same issue of church and state, by promoting atheism.

Just a disclaimer: This is no way meant to defend or promote Santorum, because he honestly scares the shit out of me, and I will vote for whomever is running against him that has the best shot at winning.

(also, i apologize if this is disjointed)

_________________
PSA: I am an overly sarcastic person. If you take me at my word, then i will most likely anger and offend you.

I personally see separation of church and state in the way that religion shouldn't be a part of politics. You can believe what you want to believe. That's why we have the freedom of religion as one of our amendment rights. But if you start letting the leaders of the world start inflicting their religious beliefs onto everyone else in the nation, that 'freedom of religion' isn't really a freedom anymore is it? Certain things might be ok, but Santorum takes it 10,000 steps too far.

I don't think anyone here has a problem with Rick Santorum's religious beliefs. What they have a problem with is how he has stated that he will change policies based on those religious beliefs. In Santorum's mind the wall that separates church and state has a one way door by which Christian values should dictate policy decisions in Washington while keeping Washington from meddling in church affairs. He only gets half the equation. No faith should be able to dictate government policy, and government shouldn’t dictate theology to any faith. He doesn't understand or seem to respect the difference between leading a nation and imposing his views.

Not once has he come off as a guy who would listen objectively to any side of an argument other than a Catholic one. That inability alone should keep him from getting elected.

_________________

I was talking in general, but I agree with you about Santorum 100%. Hell, i fully expect to become a felon if he gets elected for treason against the United States, on the basis that I left the State Church.

_________________
PSA: I am an overly sarcastic person. If you take me at my word, then i will most likely anger and offend you.

That's a select characterization of Obama's criticism, which is based at least as much on his actual politics as it is on the racist or berther crap. Obama has proven this criticism to have merit with health care, raising the debt at a higher rate than any other president, and proposed tax increases. Whether you agree on these issues or not, it's still true stuff so the criticism is not all false rhetoric. This criticism comes from conservatives and independents too, not just extreme far right wingers.

Unfortunately we don't have any true statesmen that can unite through a commitment to public service. There are too many extreme type candidates that are backed by supporters who've dug in their heels against "the other side". These are citizens, PACs, campaign organizations, radio/tv talking heads, and current members of congress. I don't see it getting any better until a political overhaul or national/world crisis shakes people into having a healthier perspective.

I'm sorry but that is such a load of crap. We've got one of those in the office RIGHT NOW, and he's being obstructed every which way by the 'conservatives' who get in lock step with each other DESPITE whatever their constituents actually want. The republicans are digging in their heels against a president who has bent over backwards trying to negotiate a compromise with them. To believe the problem is equally shared 'left and right' is such a falsehood at this moment.

I'm sorry, did you just call Obama a uniting statesman?

Besides being abjectly incorrect I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion. Statesman is debatable because that's an objective measure, but he's definitely not a politician who unites people. We have hard data on that.



Also you imply Republicans in the house and Senate are voting in opposition of their constituents, as if everyone in the country is 100% behind Obama's agenda if it weren't for those pesky Republicans in congress.

That's bullshit.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

But he's sure as hell TRYING, how can you honestly look at the political landscape right now and come to some conclusion OTHER than that the republicans are being completely obstructionist?

yeah, Bush tried too...tried like hell at the beginning of his presidency.

No child left behind was a bipartisan effort by Bush....Health care reform was the exact opposite by Obama.
He went straight for the jugular.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

I did not mean to imply that for matters across the board. But when the polls show a majority of republican voters in favor of raising taxes on the rich, yet the republicans in office hold some bullshit tax pledge from norquist, over the will of their constituents....well, you've got people not being served by their elected official. Why? because the republicans have CHOSEN....CHOSEN to take this stance against Obama. They are the obstructionists, they've come out and plainly stated that their main objective is to block everything this president wants to do. So no, the gridlock in washington is NOT shared equally.

I prefer gridlock in Washington.
I'm sorry Democrats rolled over for everything Bush wanted...that's not the GOP's fault.

And to your point, there are a shitload of Republican voters (Tea party types) that absolutely agree with no tax increases at any cost....that's where all those Tea party, hard line GOP members of the house came from in the 2010 elections.
You know, the elections where the people decided the Republicans should be in control of the house.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Congress' approval rating is 8%. Those tea partiers are most definitely not what the country wants now that they've seen the party of "no" in action.

BTW that's a historic low and far lower than Obama's approval rating. If the GOP thinks the tea baggers have some sort of mandate, they better get ready for a tough election year.

Congressional approval has been in the shitter since at least 2007 (that's being generous) I hardly think that's a reflection on GOP members of the house in the last 2 years.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Rates have gone down in the last two years from what were already low numbers, seems pretty clear that IS a reflection.

ok, so when it was 11% under Pelosi it's because she was doing a kick ass job and 8% under Boehner it's because the GOP are dirty obstructionists that don't listen to their constituents.

Got it.
I guess I didn't realize this was a contest about who sucks less.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

You're the one who brought up "the people" deciding on Congress.

They did.
2010 was a bad year for Democrats and a good year for Republicans.
Unless you argue voter fraud, that's because "the people" wanted the GOP in there to stand against Obama and his agenda.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...