Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why Shouldn't Rick Santorum Be President?

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 14, 2012, 2:30 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Here is the #1 reason Rick Santorum should not be president.

His platform for presidency is almost entirely based on violating the 1st Amendment in the constitution.

No law shall be created respecting a religion.

He recently gave a speech about instilling the law of his God into the laws of our country and uses specific examples of laws he would change and create based on the law of his God. What he is saying here is entirely against the 1st Amendment of our Constitution.

64 Comments

64 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Please consider how much freer we would all be with President Santorum.
We would all be free to be totally like him,
to be free to think like him,
to be free to believe like him.
Why do we need the 1st Amendment when we can have Rick?
BE HAPPY !
When is the last time you saw an unhappy mob of lemmings?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Hahahaha at first I thought you were going to be serious. Awesome comment. Thanks for the laugh.

[-] -3 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

So you are saying that if he were elected we would lose all freedom? Really?

[-] 8 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Ok- I would not be like him
but he would want EVERYONE to be like him
who needs "islamofascists" when we can have "christofascists"

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

They speak out against any religion in any country trying to force their mumbo jumbo into government and law but then they do the same thing. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

[-] 3 points by kfreed (19) 2 years ago

That is one VERY good reason why Santorum shouldn't be in the White House, but let's add these for the sake of full confession:

Santorum: ‘Cut Social Security Now’: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20120107_13_A10_CUTLIN21760

Santorum: Voucherize Medicare: http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Pennsylvania/Rick_Santorum/Views/Health_Care/

Santorum Tax Plan Cuts Taxes for the Wealthy; Adds $900 Billion to Deficit: http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Study-Santorum-tax-plan-swells-deficit-by-900B-2622588.php#ixzz1lkIJlWha

[VIDEO] Santorum In Idaho: ‘Sell Off Public Lands To The Private Sector’: http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/16/426828/santorum-in-idaho-sell-off-public-lands-to-the-private-sector/

[VIDEO] Santorum: ‘God’s law and Civil Law Must Be The Same’: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/santorum-gods-law-and-civil-law-must-be-same

[VIDEO] Santorum: ‘Americans Should Suffer, Like Good Christians’ http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/11/18/372693/santorum-americans-should-suffer/

Santorum: Manmade ‘Global Warming is a Hoax’: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/07/420181/santorum-manmade-global-warming-hoax-science-stewards/

[VIDEO] Santorum: ‘Birth Control is NOT OK’: http://www.newser.com/story/139777/rick-santorum-birth-control-is-not-ok.html

[VIDEO] Santorum: ‘Satan is systematically destroying America’: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39932_Santorum_Satan_Is_Systematically_Destroying_America

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

Yes, Thanks. I have to look closer at your links.

NPR just had an interview about Rick Santorum. It seems Rick lives in Washington, but acts like he lives in Pennsylvania. And he is an unregistered Lobbyist. His financial disclosure form shows that he prefers to list him self as a "Consultant".

I guess he proves the typical politician that leaves office through the REVOLVING DOOR to corrupt the laws as a Lobbyist. We need to pass a law limiting the number of Lobbyist - Like outlawing Lobbying and outlawing PACs.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I agree. Santorum is a hideous train wreck.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

All the better. I hope he wins the nomination. I heard somewhere the Dems are encouraging voters in states with open primaries to head to the polls to vote for him in the primary. He's running on social issues. The Religious Right love that. The only reason the Republican primary is in such conflict now is that it's a battle of the Religious Right v Republican ptb, that know Santorum will have a very difficult time moving back to center and will likely lose to the Pres.

Or even center right. He's so far right he's off the chart. With the far right Evangelical wingnuts.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I don't believe that the Dems are encouraging voters to vote for him. I would be really surprised. The entire Republican party is in conflict and has been for some time simply because they cater to lunatics. The truly sad part is that there are those Republicans that recognize that batshit crazy isn't working for them and it is beyond their control to control it.

We at least had people that would bring excellent points to a debate and that is now gone. It is quite sad. The Evangelicals are not going to align with Mitt. I kind of like watching them eat their own.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

2011-2012 All the while Mitt Romney quietly sings "O Beautiful for spacious skies" in the back field:

Michelle Bachmann is popular. The media dig in. Everyone finds out she and her husband don't believe in gay people and that she only does what her husband says. She goes away.

Herman Cain is popular. The media digs in. He's grabby with women and he then goes away. Rick Prry is popular. Doesn't know what he's talking about, has Alzheimer's and then he goes away.

Then Newt Gingrich is popular. Everyone knows he's crazy but they really don't want to vote for Romney. Then he starts to get too crazy and the crazier history comes out and people start to linger and then away.

Santorum is the only guy not to hit mainstream yet. He now becomes popular because all the other "viable" candidates have been deemed crazy and unelectable. He's in his media process. Will his sweater vest and unconstitutional over religious agenda scare people off? Or do they really really not want Romney to win?

Santorum Vs Romney, present day. It's the classic South Park situation; A Giant Douche VS a Turd Sandwich!!

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

LOL. It did look like dog and pony show. Throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks.

Bachmann had a lot of problems. I think early on she was seen as a good little puppet but I don't think she was as controllable as they would have liked. When her NH staff quit, I think it was done. I think we have seen more people in the campaigns jump ship to go with the next up and coming little winner for resume purposes.

Anyhoo.... I find it ironic that if there was ever a clear demonstration of the necessity of the First Amendment it is found here. I just don't think that they are bright enough to get it. It is anybody but Romney. Mitt Romney is a Mormon up against Dominionists. These folks want a theocracy and they were deeply disappointed with Bush. The Religious Right met to find someone to back when Perry was done.

And it is almost funny, Preyers v Prayers.

[-] 3 points by BearDickinson (125) from Ewing, VA 2 years ago

nah - just think of the accidents from people slipping on all that santorum. plus, we would all be coerced into wearing sweater vests.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

It's like Santorum wasn't thrilled enough to just have a name derived from shit, but he also wanted to dress like shit too.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

There are a lot more reasons but that one is certainly sufficient.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

There are too many more reasons. But this one speaks volumes.

[-] 5 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

He and the Bishops could transform us into the dark ages again faster than you can say Confiteor Deo omnipoténti.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21302) 2 years ago

The latest silly drivel from Rick Santorum: “President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college,” Santorum said. “What a snob!”

And, he's claiming that higher education makes people less faithful. LOL!

[-] 2 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

He is just another establishment clone.

[-] 5 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

He's a lot worse than most of the clones though. Hahaha.

So far all I've heard from him is this

"Jesus, God."

"We have to get Obama out of the white house."

"Gay people do not deserve to have equal rights."

"Racial profiling can be a valuable tool."

[-] 3 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

Dont forget that birth control is not okay because it frees people to do things in the, um (uncomfortable wiggle in chair) in the sex, um sexual realm.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

he has no respect for the invisible hand of the market

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

How about a courtesy flush, Mr. Santorum? Please!

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

Well, I heard James Carville implying that Rick Santorum had made his money in a bad way (government contracts or something). I failed to find the video or link. I think it was 13 FEB 2012. But found a link to more info on Santorum.... http://www.nationalmemo.com/article/rick-santorum-blue-collar-one-percenter

(Nationalmemo.com, Thu, 02/16/2012 - 10:45pm — Joe Conason)

1) Iffy Leadership PAC for Santorum pays his credit cards. 2) Conflict of Interest Mortgage Loan for Santorum Mansion. 3) Santorum Pushed bills for Tobacco, Liquor Lobbyist. 4) Santorum voted against minimum wage increases. 5) Santorum worked to get a $100 M subsidy for coal-to-diesel. 6) Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics listed Santorum as most corrupt. 7) He was mocked for chairing a Lobbying Reform Committee for which he stepped down. 8) Santorum Supported Privatization of Social Security which would have turned Trust Fund over to Wall Street Firms.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-filings/entry/crew-files-ethics-complaint-against-sen.-santorum

■Sen. Santorum runs the K Street project, created by conservative activist Grover Norquist and former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), in which he ensures that all top lobbying and trade association jobs are filled by Republicans;

■Two days before Sen. Santorum introduced a bill that would benefit private national weather companies at the expense of the National Weather Service, the Senator's political action committee, America's Foundation, received a $2,000 donation from the chief executive officer of AccuWeather, Inc., a leading weather data provider located in State College, PA.;

■Working to undermine public confidence in the National Weather Service, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina Sen. Santorum stated in an interview with a local Philadelphia radio station that the National Weather Service failed to predict the storm's fury and that its warnings were "not sufficient." In fact, the early warnings about Hurricane Katrina issued by the National Weather Service were praised for their accuracy by news organizations such as Associated Press, NBC News and The New York Times.

■Since the 2001-2002 school year, at least three of Sen. Santorum's children have attended a Pennsylvania cyber charter school in Penn Hills, PA, costing local taxpayers about $67,000, despite the fact that the Senator and his family spend most of the year in Virginia.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Here's a speech from FDR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQkxr0zdBvM

If Santorum said half of what FDR did, many here would freak the fuck out.

Not that I'm saying santorum is a new FDR, just that religious speech in american politics is a proud tradition that has fallen out of fashion.

Or would you rather have a guy (Romney) that thinks it's inspirational to quote america the beautiful?

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

FDR is not alive and running for president and I wasn't alive back then.

Romney is a tool.

I do not approve of any GOP candidate and I don't approve of Obama either.

This is one of the worst elections in American history.

[-] 3 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

one in a long line of worst elections :(

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

“What better way to enslave a man than to give him the vote and tell him he’s free.” -Albert Camus

[-] 1 points by kfreed (19) 2 years ago

Religious speech has fallen out of fashion?????????????

"God" is about all we hear out of Republicans these days.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Santorum he will continue to support the Federal Reserve, just as Obama is, just as Romney would, just as Gingrich would, just as Clinton did, just as Bush did, just as Reagan did, just as....

There is only ONE person who continues to speak out against the Federal Reserve and who actually created a bill that gained a lot of support, but has not yet passed. That bill is called H.R. 1207, or it's otherwise known as The Federal Reserve Transparency Act.

[-] 4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

What about Dennis Kucinich's HR 2990 that goes the next step and restores constitutional authority over the monetary system?

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

I like that, too. I am a fan of Dennis Kucinich.

Since Ron Paul is for an adherence to the pre-1913 Constitution, he is also for restoring "constitutional authority over the monetary system".

I would vote for a Paul-Kucinich ticket, and/or a Kucinich-Paul ticket.

For 2012, I'll be voting for Ron Paul. Even if I have to write his name in again, like I did in 2008.

[-] 4 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Ahh - the " he'll make the trains run on time" argument

[-] 2 points by kfreed (19) 2 years ago

Hate to break it to you, but Ron Paul is also a Christo-fascist (he just hid it well... until recently):

Who Is Ron Paul? In His Own Words…

*Anonymous Hacks White Supremacist Site, Finds Direct Links to Ron Paul – Ron Paul’s connections to Neo-Nazis revealed: “The documents show numerous connections between Republican candidate Ron Paul and these racist Neanderthals; they’re heavily involved in campaigning for Paul, and according to the messages, have held regular meetings with Ron Paul himself: Ron Paul, the American Third Position Party and Stormfront. Also revealed: Ron Paul has held meetings with A3P and Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party — the notorious UK fascist group with neo-Nazi roots.” Anonymous Statement: http://pirasec.com/ http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39862_Anonymous_Hacks_White_Supremacist_Site_Finds_Direct_Links_to_Ron_Paul

[VIDEO] Ron Paul promises “big cuts” in new ad:

“Paul has vowed to cut $1 trillion from the budget in the first year if he were elected president by ending the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Interior.

The Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration and Department of Defense would also see deep cuts under his budget plan.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/05/ron-paul-promises-big-cuts-in-new-ad/

[VIDEO] Ron Paul: End Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid: http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/04/ron-paul-end-medicare-social-security-and-medicaid/

[VIDEO] Ron Paul Calls For Federal Public Lands To Be ‘Sold Off To Private Owners’: http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/10/21/349536/ron-paul-public-lands/

[VIDEO] Ron Paul plans to ‘eventually’ end all federal student aid: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/23/ron-paul-plans-to-eventually-end-all-federal-student-aid/

[VIDEO] Ron Paul Rejects Evolution: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/08/ron_paul_rejects_evolution_too.php#more

[VIDEO] Ron Paul’s powerful pro-life ad: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/14/video-ron-pauls-powerful-pro-life-reminder/

Ron Paul: No Church/State Separation: http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/08/06/authoritarian-or-libertarian-ron-paul-on-churchstate-separation-secularism.htm

[VIDEO] Ron Paul in a nutshell:

“ThinkProgress compiled video of just a few of Paul’s many claims that basic laws and essential programs violate the Constitution. A short list includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Reserve, income taxes, and even the dollar bill.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/20/392728/paul-everything-is-unconstitutional/

[VIDEO] CNN: Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletter – Paul Walks on CNN Interview “Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-TX) emergence as the front-runner in the Iowa GOP primary is bringing new scrutiny on Paul’s newsletters from the 1980s and 1990s. The newsletters, published under his name, included content claiming that African-Americans are trying to give white people HIV, suggested that Washington, DC is “anti-white and proud of it,” provided instructions on how to murder African-Americans, and warned of “malicious gay(s)” who spread HIV.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/22/394625/ron-paul-storms-interview-racist/

5 Reasons Progressives Should Treat Ron Paul with Extreme Caution -- 'Cuddly' Libertarian Has Some Very Dark Politics

“He's anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality and anti-education, and that's just the start.”

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/152192/5_reasons_progressives_should_treat_ron_paul_with_extreme_caution_--_%27cuddly%27_libertarian_has_some_very_dark_politics?page=entire

Ron Paul [Election 2012] Hires Christian Right Political Activist with American Family Association for Church Outreach: [Quote] Paul has brought several Christian conservatives onto his campaign in an ambitious effort to reach believers for his cause. Michael Heath, the campaign's Iowa director, previously worked for a New England-based group called the Christian Civic League of Maine that fought against adding sexual orientation to the state's Human Rights Act. The national campaign has tasked Heath with leading church outreach in Iowa, where for months he has met with pastors and Christian congregations. "That's the biggest part of what I'm doing as state director," Heath told Yahoo News after a day of knocking on church doors with campaign literature. "Going to churches with a message in support of Dr. Paul's campaign that is very much faith-based and is also rooted in his commitment to a constitutionally defined limited federal government." [Unquote] http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mike-heath-resurfaces-ron-paul-iowa

[VIDEO] Ron Paul’s Full Speech at the Christian Fundamentalist Values Voter Summit 2011 Paul won the straw poll. Note the organizers listed on the screen behind him: Liberty Council, American Family Association, Family Research Council, American Values, Liberty University – the entire Christian Reconstructionist crew all gathered together under one roof.

Listen to ALL of it. Paul says that government has no place in education and that the responsibility for educating children should fall solely to the family. Reiterates elimination of the Dept. of Education.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wnj-5z9NJoY

Paul Rosenberg: Exposing Religious Fundamentalism in the US [Ron Paul included] http://spencerwatch.com/2011/09/07/paul-rosenberg-exposing-religious-fundamentalism-in-the-us/

Saint Paul: Inside Ron Paul’s effort to convince conservative Christians that he’s their man [Paul tells Yahoo his policy ideas are rooted in scripture – see former Paul staffer Gary North’s “10,000 page exposition on Biblical Capitalism”] http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/saint-paul-inside-ron-paul-effort-convince-christian-150637605.html

Gary North’s “Biblical Capitalism” [Christian Reconstruction] http://www.garynorth.com/public/department57.cfm

Rachel Tabachnick on Gary North, Christian Reconstruction, and the Religious Right’s War on Progressive Economic Policy http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/2/1/132159/0192

Like Father Like Son, Rand Paul Opposes Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rand-paul-address-ralph-reeds-religious-right-conference

Ron Paul: Stealth Dominionist: http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2011/09/exposing-religious-fundamentalism-in-the-us.html

Random Book Blogging: Gary North, AIDS, Ron Paul, and Christian Reconstructionism http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/random-book-blogging-gary-north-aids-ron-paul-and-christian-reconstructionism

Ron Paul photo with White Supremacist ‘Stormfront’ Leader (particularly see the embedded Orcinus link): http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/21/425193/-Ron-Paul-in-photo-with-Stormfront-leader,-son

Dominionists discuss infiltrating #OCCUPYWALLSTREET: http://www.articlesbase.com/news-and-society-articles/is-gop-stance-on-the-occupy-wall-street-movement-a-mistake-5317528.html

Ron Paul's brand of tea party is exactly the same as the fundamental Christian right's brand of tea party (look up “Gary North: Biblical Capitalism”). Paul simply dresses his ideology in secular terms for Republican dupes. In short, he’s a libertarian theocrat, oxymoronic as that sounds (look up “theocratic libertarianism” as well while you’re at it).

See: www.theocracywatch.org for background on Christian Reconstruction.

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

kfreed: Who will you be voting for in 2012?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Coldinflorida (50) 2 years ago

There is no such thing as religion, just different states of confusion, everyone is a xfacists in my opinion the ? Is what is your x is, when your facist gets in charge are you going to tell them to not interfere with my religion, ie love my neighbor and avoid people that are drama queens which brings me to my point, everyone who likes politics are drama queens, even me.. But like everyone I can stand my own draw but not anyone else's. Conservatives liberals, Shriners, and Spanish soap operas ... Why can't politics not sound like an episode of entertainment tonight. Should we even care about opinions of others, why not just be nice to people, vote, and call it a day. Instead it becomes my stooges and your stooges... Stooges hold the party line in an echo chamber... The real question should be if a person was nice and supported Rick would you be friends with them and if a person was nice and supported Obama would you be friends with them.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

My post is regarding laws in our constitution. I would say your comment is kind of invalid.

I do not support Obama and have many disagreements with my friends, and I even have some republican friends. But they are still my friends. I actually prefer talking with people about politics with a different perspective. When I agree with people then there's not as much to talk about. As far as politics go. However, I do like reaching an agreement after talking out a situation.

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Any Con in the WH would be a disaster. The 1% who employ them know their number is up and they are going to squeeze as much wealth out of this country until they absolutely can't anymore.

No more Cons in government, period.

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

Image and Vote! Image and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

[-] -1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

The laws of Judeo/Christianity are already infused into our system of laws. This is the same the world round, whatever country your in, the laws governing it usually reflect the culture and morals of it's people.

Santorum wouldn't be the worst choice out there, actually, he sounds better and better each day.

I would be happier with someone whom holds deep moral / religious convictions then someone who has none.

And I doubt that that he'd be able to pass through congress the types of laws your implying. Let alone the supreme court.

Now if he were running for king..... that would be a different story.....

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

He is a bigot and does not support equal rights. He also was on national television during the debates and said racial and religious profiling is a good idea.

Santorum on tv - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTOUWc_lrD8

He supports a system that violates the bill of rights. He is a petty religious freak. I see no difference from what he says about instilling his laws of his God into our laws in our country and the the type of people that want to put their religious view of Sharia Law into their country. Religious extremism is never the way to go. We are not a society of Santorum's religious beliefs.

I'm just going to have to plead the 1st.

[-] -1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

I watched the video, and would have to agree with him, if you want to catch terrorists, then profiling young muslim men, can be a useful, though not the only tool, also as he said.

And I realize this can cut both ways, and if cops were looking for abortion clinic bombers, then looking at white, evengelical christian men, would also be acceptable.

It's not the only tool, but does have it's merits depending on the situation. The only danger with profiling is if it is used as a systematic means of harassment. Which isn't what santorum was calling for.

As far as what he's said about religion and laws, I've actually not seen that clip, but can Imagine what he probably said. But , at worst, he was probably calling for our laws to reflect a moral code based on judeo/ christian values.

I doubt if he's prepping government confessionals, nor readying the national communion act. But if he does, then yeah, I'd oppose that.

And if he asks for us to pray toward the national sweatervest monument, then I'd have a problem there too.

But if he's saying that he'd oppose laws that were immoral, or counter to his religious convictions, then instead of fearing that, I'd respect that.

I think that is a big problem of the past 30 years, too many presidents never asked wether a law was moral or immoral, for if they had, then a lot of bullshit would've been vetoed.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

His religious convictions tell him that gay people do not deserve equal rights.

What part of the bible says "Don't Ask Don't Tell" should be reinstated in the military?

Also racial profiling violates the 4th amendment in the constitution.

It's not American.

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

heck - it's not stopping the current president from violating the first amendment why should it stop anyone else.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The contraceptive ordeal is not unconstitutional.

I do not support Obama and I speak out against his administration frequently, but I don't listen to GOP propaganda about a supposed "war on religion."

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

The whole healthcare bill is unconstitutional as is most of what the federal government does. This is just the icing on the cake.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

People can claim what they want about the healthcare bill, but they can't use religion to try and get it changed.

How is contraceptive insurance coverage unconstitutional because of the 1st amendment?

Remember you can't use the 1st amendment. That justification against it implies that we should also be following other people's religions for laws which would include Sharia Law. Many of our laws go against Sharia Law. So this would mean they are unconstitutional as well? Or can you just admit your argument is invalid? My religion says I can rob banks as a holy sacrament. It frees the spirit through adrenaline rush. Should robbing banks be legalized because a law against it is unconstitutional because of my religious beliefs?

No law shall be created respecting an establishment of religion.

And yes the government and Obama act outside of the constitution all the time. I won't argue with you on that at all because I say that all the time. But in this specific instance, having insurance companies cover contraceptives, is not unconstitutional because of the 1st amendment. Also consider churches don't even pay taxes.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

compelling anyone to provide free abortion coverage for their employees is completely immoral. Especially for religious institution. Are you kidding? "No law shall be created respecting an establishment of religion." You left off the last part: "or the free exercise there of".

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

No one is stopping free exercise of religion. The people in the church can believe if they want. You ever here of the court cases where people's religion was stopping them from getting their kids taken to a hospital because of there belief's about God's will?

Like I said, should we adjust laws to fit into Sharia Law and other religions? Fuck no.

There is ZERO stoppage of freedom to exercise a religion in the contraceptive debate.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

if you are forcing me to pay for someone's abortion - you are infringing on my beliefs.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You pay taxes don't you?

The wars go against my beliefs. But instead of trying to violate the 1st amendment and making claims about my religion I use REAL justifications. Because asking the government to change laws due to religious beliefs is asking the government to violate the 1st amendment of our constitution. Do you see why we can't obey everyone's religion? Do you not believe in the constitution of our country?

What people like you are suggesting is to follow rules of your religions. That's a dangerous step. That's what people with Sharia Law want to happen.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

ok - I run a religious org. I'll pay the penalty or I will wind down my business & call it a day - satisfied? I will not run my organization the way the feds tell me to. That is not freedom that is tyranny. I will leave the country if necessary before abandoning my beliefs for some government. What's next freak !? You have no sense of history. zero!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I could see the conversation now.

Other country - "So why did you leave your country?"

You - "They wanted insurance policies to include contraceptives if a person asked for them."

Them - "In this country we have universal healthcare so it's already that way."

Your argument is invalid.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

your argument is unconstitutional which you people dont seem to mind. The government s role is to preserve & protect the constitution period. Most of what they do today is a complete violation of that oath. But thats ok - you people hate America anyway. you love the idea of of a Utopian dependency. Wait till the money runs out. Take a look at Greece - it's headed our way.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You're getting more and more ignorant in your replies as this goes on.

My problem is that you originally started your justification with religion. Which is ignorant considering the 1st amendment, and no one is stopping you from exercising your religion. You can use any other justification against contraceptives you want, your claim can be "The government can't make these kind of laws making a business do that," that's fine. My whole problem is you were trying to use religious beliefs to back your claim, which is not fine because no law shall be created respecting an establishment of religion.

Insurance companies supplying contraceptives if people ask for them is not one step closer to Greece.

One step closer to Greece is to continually let the Federal Reserve and the big banks and credit institutions have way too much power over our nation's sovereignty.

prime example - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1dkZShYP78

Fun fact - most American catholic women have used contraceptives in their life time.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

"no law shall be created respecting an establishment of religion." - nor prohibit the practice there of - you left of the second part as expected.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

No one is limiting your practice of your religion. Like I said, if what you're saying is how the first amendment worked, we would have Sharia Law and all OTHER religious laws in our country because it would be unconstitutional to do anything that disagreed with ANY religious rules or laws. BUT that is NOT how the first amendment works.

STOP BEING SO OBTUSE

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

if you force me to subsidize abortion - you are infringing on my rights to practice my religion. Not only that you are infringing on my rights altogether regardless of religion. The whole healthcare law is completely immoral. Force is not freedom. I'll pay the penalty & let the losers who want free medical coverage fend for themselves.

[-] -3 points by fairforall (279) 2 years ago

Many of our laws and even societal beliefs are based in religion.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I would have to disagree. I think that religious people think that though.

[-] 1 points by Opportunity (19) 2 years ago

Give an example of such a law. Even if a law is based in religion, that does not make it acceptable.

[-] -1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

an example of such a law? hmmmm, here goes

Murder, theft, perjury, treason, arson, fraud,manslaughter, malpractice, adultery to name just a few.

All of these are crimes precisely because the majority of religions find these acts reprehensible, and can be found in religious texts dating back to the codex of hammurabi in the late bronze age.

[-] -1 points by fairforall (279) 2 years ago

Thou shall not kill. You don't find this acceptable?

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Your argument is invalid and does not apply.

Santorum is talking about not letting gays get married, reinstating don't ask don't tell, and other dumb shit based on the fact that he thinks his God doesn't want people to have equal rights in our country.

Is "don't ask don't tell" if you're gay in the military in the bible?

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

I agree, Fair. The constitution does not say that we cannot create laws that come from ideals we first gained through religion. It says we cannot create laws prohibiting the free practice of religion, which also means we cannot create laws requiring the practice in any way of any one religion.

Your example is right on. Here is a law that many support primarily because it is in the Ten Commandments. To be certain some who saw that such laws against murder were enacted within their states did so for religious reasons. Because the law, however, has nothing to do with the practice of religion, it is completely constitutional.

So long as that is the kind of "instilling" our religion into the laws that Santorum has in mind, there would be nothing unconstitutional about them. If, on the other hand, he wants to instill acts that are strictly religious in nature into our laws, then he would be wrong.

I am not, however, inclined to think he will make a good president, and I am a little concerned about how far he would go with "instilling" religion into the law. Bush's Faith-Based initiatives went too far because in practice you cannot give money to one part of church's budget for charitable work without supporting the church, itself. That's because any part of its budget for charitable activity you fund 1) takes away from the church's need to continue to fund that part of the budget with its own money, freeing that money for other church uses; 2) churches by nature will find ways to share the gospel while they are providing charitable services.

But you are right on about it being perfectly right in many instances to instill religious beliefs into the law whenever those beliefs are not peculiar to the religion only.

--Knave Dave