Wait, “Threaten personal freedom and cherished institutions”?
I don’t care about the title, yeah yeah Cumming, GA. Santorum is such a fucking idiot. God should not be in the White House.Hey, remember that time John F. Kennedy ran for president? And everyone was freaking the fuck out because, dear god, a Catholic in the White House— all his decisions will be Catholic-based, all his influences will be due to being Catholic, he’ll turn the entire country into Catholics— and Kennedy had to make a speech that assured that, although his religion would guide him morally, it would not hold any power over his actions as president, the actions made for America. Remember that? And remember what a ridiculously intelligent president John F. Kennedy turned out to be?
Santorum is the exact opposite of this. His platform in its entirety is based upon his religion and his interpretation of his religion. All his decisions, actions, all his speeches, rebuttals, everything he does for America, if he makes it into office, will not be for a country with a Constitution that grants freedom, but for God — and not my idea of God, or your idea of God, but his God.
As hilarious as this “cumming” joke is, I find the line of “Santorum blast Obama policies that he said threaten personal freedom and cherished institutions” much more giggling-inducing, as the only institutions Santorum wants in America are Christian churches and the only freedom he’d allow is by those of the Ten Commandments.
God should not be in the White House.
Yes well we Catholics are the best. :|
But hmm seriously now. I guess it’s because I come from a country where the Church and the State still influence each other—though not always harmoniously—but I don’t think religion and politics can be really separate. As I’ve said elsewhere, it’s because the two, in the end, adhere to the same mission: the betterment of the people. However, the same cannot be said of those who use religion to further whatever personal agendas or frameworks they have in mind. Religion, sadly, has been used as a means to mislead the masses—in Christianity, in Islam, and so on.
For me, the ideal leader is one who can bring God with him—or her!—into the White House, or the Malacanang, or in Buckingham Palace, but not (ab)use the name of Divine Providence. If we go with Kennedy’s example, the leader should be guided by his morals (while religion claims to be a moralizing force, it’s important to note that people say morality is universal), but not forcing the spoon of his personal and unwarranted notion of it onto the people.
As an aside, the Ten Commandments? If you want to play it the Bible Way, you might want to consider that Jesus Christ in the Gospels (who, by the way, all Christendom recognizes as God) has summed the law (all 613 of them in the Torah) and the Commandments into two: to love God with one’s whole being, and to love another as oneself. Obama, at the least, with his “liberal, socialist” choices like the healthcare bill, seems closer to the goal than this guy who bashes certain groups (the LGBT community, if I remember right) and politicians and advocates nothing but the widening of the split between the American people. Food for thought.
The only way to have both God and State getting along—-
—is for them to be separate.
He’s not doing anything for the “betterment” here. He’s trying to control people.
Religious freedom? Nope, not here.
20 years old.
