Quantcast

«

»

Feb 07 2012

Santorum wouldn’t roll over religious freedom, he’d drown it

If that mental image disgusts you, wait until you read this part of Santorum‘s victory speech. Yes, victory speech – he just handily won the polls in both Missouri and Minnesota EDIT: and Colorado. This is my favorite bit of lunacy (transcript courtesy of Slog):

“Americans understand that there is a great deal at stake…the president does not believe that.” Obama believes “the government can give you rights…they can give you the right to health care. Look what happens when the government gives you rights, unlike when God gives you rights. The government can take them away. Santorum says he never believed we’d have a president “who would roll over” religious freedom to impose “secular values.” He continues, “We need to be the voice for freedom.”

Again, I wish I could completely disregard this guy as a fringe wacko…but thousands and thousands of Americans are voting for him. The idea that he’s the one who would uphold religious freedom is hysterical to me.

Dear Mr. Frothy Mixture: imposing a Christian theocracy on others is the exact fucking opposite of religious freedom. The only people who lap up what you spew have no concept of religious freedom, but just like hearing the promise that their personal nonsensical beliefs have the chance to become law. These are the same people who’d flip their shit if a Muslim candidate said the identical quote.

Thousands and thousands of Americans are voting for this man.

Gah.

27 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Tom Goodfellow

    He would be a terrible, terrible president but no need for panic yet. Thousands of Americans may be voting for him, but they are the kinds of Americans that vote in Republican primaries. Put this guy up against Obama in a general election and, looking optimistically, he could get absolutely toasted and send the religious right scurrying back to the fringes where they belong.

    That’s the good thing about democracy; the majority gets to outvote those who merely shout loudest.

    (Disclaimer: I am not American but an interested observer from Australia)

  2. 2
    Praedico

    If Santorum wins the nomination, I’m building a bomb shelter.
    If he becomes President, I’m moving to Mars. Or possibly Alpha Centauri.

  3. 3
    Kevin

    Isn’t this just his 15 minutes of fame? It seems like every candidate has led in the polls, that is, until the public learns more about them.

  4. 4
    Steve Caldwell

    I think he’s staying in the race not to win. He’s trying to make his “Google problem” go away.

  5. 5
    E.A. Blair

    By operating business like schools* and hospitals and insurance companies, the Catholic church is putting one foot in the private sector and is obligated to follow the same rules as other businesses in the same industry. If they’re not willing to follow those rules, they should get out of those industries. That’s it. No questions asked. There may have been a time when Catholic hospitals were run primarily as an errand of mercy, but that era is long gone. Religious institutions of higher learning have likewise grown more and more secular in purpose and, again, can no longer pretend to religious-based exclusivity. The only Catholic insurance company I know of is run as a fraternal organization, and restricts its sale of policies to practicing Catholics, so that’s a skunk of another stripe.

    It’s also about time that the Catholic church, and every other denomination as well**, let go of the notion that they have the right to dictate to people who have not voluntarily submitted to their authority. The pope and the Catholic bishops do not have the right to deny contraception to non-Catholics. Hell, they can’t even stop goodly numbers of Catholics from using birth control.

    *Colleges and universities are the cogent ones – elementary and high schools not so much)

    **Throw in all the other proselytizing religions as well.

  6. 6
    Erik

    I know this pales in comparison to the reality of what Rick Santorum is, but every time I see him I’m reminded of the clueless kid in high school who had the “Kick Me” sign on his back. I picture him running for student council and not understanding why only three people voted for him.

    If he somehow wins the nomination, I expect he will be wondering something very similar after the general election.

  7. 7
    StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    The only people who lap up what you spew

    People lapping up spewed santorum?

    DID. NOT. WANT. THAT. MENTAL. IMAGE.

    Eeewwwwwwww.

    @2. Praedico : Thankfully Santorum won’t. Win either that is. Romney is almost guaranteed the R-Nom & Obama or Romney will be the President probably 60/40 in Obama’s favour. I think.

    Another morbidly interested Aussie observer here btw.

    But if I’m wrong I’m not sure Alpha Centauri would be far enough – after all its still the nearest star. (Presuming Proxima Centauri *is* gravitationally bound.)

  8. 8
    StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    Thinking gross – but apt – mental images, I read a good article today in the Guardian Weekly newspaper on the role money plays in US politics. Great quote from there :

    “Money in American politics was already an elephant in the room. Now the supreme court [lack of caps original- ed.] has given it a laxative, taken away the shovel and asked us to ignore both the sight and the stench.”
    - Page 19, “In the US money always matters” opinion (?) article by Gary Younge, ‘Guardian Weekly’, 3rd-9th Feb. 2012.

    The same source notes that Mittens Romney, apparently, has *double* the personal wealth of the last *eight* presidents combined. (Not sure if that includes Obama or not.)

    It seems most likely that’ll buy him the R-nomination and later, quite possibly, the US Presidency itself. Depressing.

  9. 9
    Lynda

    These people voting for him are out of their fugging minds. Along with those others voting for Romney or that draft-dodging, dope-smoking, deadbeat dad who divorced his dying wife (thanks Molly Ivins, RIP), who are they trying to kid ?~! We have no good choice-again.

  10. 10
    PDX_Greg

    I join in your disgust of this crazy wackjob and his like-minded followers, but the pleasure I used to get from making fun of his name is no longer there ever since I discovered it was another person (justifiably) disgusted with Mr. Santorum’s thinly-disguised bigotry and hipocrasy who coined the phrase. It was much more fun when I thought it was a happy coincidence. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. My apologies to all non-pigheaded people with the Santorum surname.

  11. 11
    Francisco Bacopa

    Before you say Obama would have an easy win over Newt or Santorum, remember what everyone said about W vs Gore.

    This is serious folks. Please make sure you are registered to vote.

    Ans please post these two hyperlinks at the end of everything you post.

    Santorum

    Rick Santorum

  12. 12
    Tom Goodfellow

    My optimism also stems from Obama’s strengths as a campaigner. Far stronger than Gore was, and that contest was essentailly a tie.

  13. 13
    paul

    I would much rather see Obama face Santorum or Gingrich in November than have him run against Romney.

  14. 14
    Arancaytar

    or possibly Alpha Centauri

    I’d rather take my chances with the mindworms than Santorum, too.

  15. 15
    Sqrat

    Santorum:

    Look what happens when the government gives you rights, unlike when God gives you rights. The government can take them away.

    It is important to understand that this is not some strange and idiosyncratic notion about the nature of rights peculiar to Santorum. It is a widespread meme within the religious right. And it is one with a reasonably respectable historical pedigree, since those who hold this position can cite the words of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…. According to this “self-evident truth,” rights come from God, while government can only extend privileges — which it can in turn withdraw.

    If you hold this view, then you are likely to see the claim that God does not exist as a denial that you have any rights and the assertion that you have only those privileges which government has extended to you and which it has not yet seen fit to withdraw.

  16. 16
    Marshall

    ^Brilliant^

  17. 17
    Sqrat

    My state is sure to go with the Republican nominee as long as whoever it is still has a pulse on election day. That leaves me free to consider voting for a third party candidate instead of for Obama.

  18. 18
    JD

    Damn Jen, sometimes you really nail it.

  19. 19
    Tim

    Fucking shitbags, I hate that I live in Missouri. The Kepler mission needs to hurry up and find us a nice habitable-zone planet at least 10 parsecs away. That *might* put enough distance between me and the loons in this state.

  20. 20
    'Tis Himself

    Another Sid Meier fan.

  21. 21
    Moby Disk

    Before you jump to conclusions, you need to understand that he is quoting the US constitution.

    There are two philosophies of “rights” in modern government. One is that you have no rights, except those rights granted to you by the government. This was common about 200 years ago, before the colonies fought a revolution and changed the thinking. The other view, sometimes called the “American view,” is that rights are instrinsic, unalienable, or granted to you by “God.” You then choose to give the government the power to regulation a specific subset of those rights, and in trade you get back a justice system.

    This is a philosphical God concept, not a religious concept. You have these rights because you are an intelligent thinking being.

    The US constitution pioneered the second view. It specifically states that the federal government has a certain subset of things it is allowed to regulate, and it cannot go beyond those things. The authors of the constitution really didn’t like the idea of a “Bill of Rights” because they thought people in the future would think that they only have the rights granted to them by the constitution.

    There are important consequences of this thinking. For example, in recent Supreme Court case the Court struck down a ban on violent video games. The reason is because the government does not have the power to regulate them, because the constitution does not grant the government this power. Playing violent video games is a human right and it cannot be taken away until the people amend the constitution to grant this power to the government. Even though the Bill of Rights does not say anything about video games.

  22. 22
    MC

    Read the Declaration of Independence.

    “all men are created equal, that they are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights”

    These “rights” created by Liberals are not rights at all. True rights do not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others.

  23. 23
    MC

    “The authors of the constitution really didn’t like the idea of a “Bill of Rights” because they thought people in the future would think that they only have the rights granted to them by the constitution.”

    Dead-on. They saw the Constitution as listing every power the government had, and that they would have no more than that.

  24. 24
    MC

    He can’t run on his record. Rush Limbaugh was right to hope Obama failed. Unfortunately, Obama succeeded in his agenda, making the country that much worse, nearly unrecognizable as a Constitutional Republic.

  25. 25
    E.A. Blair

    Idiocy. The Declaration of Independence is not a part of the body of American law and its principles, while they have served as guidlines for the later operation of our governance, do not have the same status as the Constitution and cannot be enforced by any means. To claim, as you do, that the Declaration is equivalent to the Constitution (which has no mention of a creator except in a very, very oblique way) is egregious at best.

  26. 26
    Tim O

    oh don’t worry, alpha centauri is plenty far, most of those right wingers are so anti-science they think stars are just pinholes in a giant black blanket, the sun revolves around the earth, and so on…I believe in all likelihood that the only reason Newt wants a base on the moon is so he can get all that free green cheese.

  27. 27
    Tim O

    really? I’m kinda reminded of that creepy religious camp councilor who’d take you off alone to the woods or his cabin and afterwards tell you not to talk to anyone bout your special time with him…

Leave a Reply