Godlessness.

Nah I'm only kidding, it's insecurity.

'Those people' have vowed to keep at bay the terrifying socialist, godless, commie, liberals that want to force your kids to wear condoms while they smoke weed. And the people that voted them in will happily fork over their civil liberties as long as they do.

God provides the evidence; that's what I mean about being able to empirically verify my claim.
No, that's not empirical evidence in anyone's definition of it... not one bit. You 'invited him in', you 'get some feeling'... that's not proof, that's you feeling stuff. Not empirical evidence.

It is exactly the definition. If it is untrue, nothing will happen. If it is true, God will come into your life and change you. That is empirical verification. It isn't "some feeling". It is a supernatural encounter with God which will utterly transform your life. You're simply arguing from ignorance, here.

So no comment on what Penn said?
Yeah, he has a view that if you really believe in the bible and you really believe that people will spend eternity in damnation if they don't repent. If you really believe that. Then it is upon you to actually try to save people from that fate. He felt that this man did that for him out of kindness and did it with a kind heart.

Now I bet (in fact I'm sure he's talked about such things) his views on people telling others that they're horrible people for being gay, that they are an abomination, that they should never be able to be married (which is a man made construct, nothing to do with a 'god')... and for people who do that in a way which makes others uncomfortable. I bet he has a problem with that.

I think his point was that this man believed what he does, this man felt that Teller deserved to 'be saved' and tried to help him be saved in a really NICE way. He didn't badger him, he didn't verbally attack him as being godless... he just gave him a gift that he hoped would help him find 'his truth'.

Now it won't at all, Teller will never become religious, but he saw the man came from a good place.

What you do here is entirely different. Any video on evolution or science or anything that goes against your world view is shat on by you. That's abusive, that's combative, that's not trying to save people.

And you didn't mention why you posted a version of the video with him reiterating that he's an atheist rather than the full one.
His point was, if you believe that Jesus is God, and His words are true, you are going to tell people the gospel. He may agree or disagree with how a particular person may do that; that isn't the point. Jesus told people flat out what was right and wrong, He talked about hell, and He told people the truth. There are many biblical examples of sharing the gospel, and I am in line with them.

It's amazing though, as you get through insulting me throughout the thread, that you are going to say I am abusive and combative because I post my opinions on science videos. That's kind of a joke, I think. I can't post anywhere or say anything without getting flak from the usual suspects. It doesn't matter what it is. Perhaps you prefer an echo-chamber where everyone agrees with you all the time, but suprise, it's a diverse world out there and a diversity of viewpoints.

I didn't mention why I posted the shorter video because there was no conspiracy. That's the video I initially found, I figured shorter was better than longer, and I posted it. It turns out that the longer one was posted on here already, so even if I had wanted to, I couldn't have posted it. Also, don't say Penn will never give his life to Jesus Christ. I believe that he will. If he is thoughtful enough to understand evangelism from the chistian viewpoint, somewhere in his heart he is open to knowing God. God can change a heart in the blink of an eye.

>> ^spoco2:

@shinyblurry:
God provides the evidence; that's what I mean about being able to empirically verify my claim.
No, that's not empirical evidence in anyone's definition of it... not one bit. You 'invited him in', you 'get some feeling'... that's not proof, that's you feeling stuff. Not empirical evidence.

So no comment on what Penn said?
Yeah, he has a view that if you really believe in the bible and you really believe that people will spend eternity in damnation if they don't repent. If you really believe that. Then it is upon you to actually try to save people from that fate. He felt that this man did that for him out of kindness and did it with a kind heart.

Now I bet (in fact I'm sure he's talked about such things) his views on people telling others that they're horrible people for being gay, that they are an abomination, that they should never be able to be married (which is a man made construct, nothing to do with a 'god')... and for people who do that in a way which makes others uncomfortable. I bet he has a problem with that.

I think his point was that this man believed what he does, this man felt that Teller deserved to 'be saved' and tried to help him be saved in a really NICE way. He didn't badger him, he didn't verbally attack him as being godless... he just gave him a gift that he hoped would help him find 'his truth'.

Now it won't at all, Teller will never become religious, but he saw the man came from a good place.

What you do here is entirely different. Any video on evolution or science or anything that goes against your world view is shat on by you. That's abusive, that's combative, that's not trying to save people.

And you didn't mention why you posted a version of the video with him reiterating that he's an atheist rather than the full one.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^entr0py:
Sounds like godless liberal elitism to me. Slow down there Lenin H. Rockefeller
http://factcheck.org/2012/02/college-kills-faith/
That's disappointing. College should kill faith. Well, maybe not kill it, but certainly wound it. If you go to higher education for a few years and you aren't exposed to ideas that make you at least question your faith, you and/or your college have failed in your education.


I agree with you, but what you are saying is EXACTLY what doesn't happen. I know many people that hold doctorate level degrees yet they still think creationism is great; even THOUGH the science they (literally) use in MANY instances is BASED on evolution and it working as purposed by many scientists--over a very long amount of time; and the evidence is ONLY getting thicker and higher not falling apart and slimming it's waistline--it's madness. BUT, the key thing here is that all of these people have one thing in common, all of them... They all wanted to learn about THEIR field, but when it came to anything else outside of it--even fields that are directly linked to their fields--it didn't matter, because they are of a single-minded process.

They happen to not be as curious as you or I and of course many other people that even when they learned a lot about what interested them, they realized that there was NO FENCE and that the rabbit hole (as it is said) keeps going. I think many other people have successfully quarantined sections of their life of from other sections. Their mind functions like the CDC and it is why we start ending up with people with seemingly underlying psychological issues like Rick Santorum, as they treat their life like it is literally a world alone unto themselves.

They can hear and see all the information you say, but unless you have gotten their curiosity they will treat it as a contamination and try to find a way to dispose of the information--meanwhile, if they have psychological problems, their brain is actively helping them in their routine.

I've been confounded as well, for a longtime. Like I said if you pay attention the one thing you SHOULD learn from EVERY class you have taken is that the rabbit hole has yet to stop. So it seems like education would in fact drive a wedge between you and any faith as you learn more, the more you should realize how much we still have to learn. It should make your faith seem even smaller than you feel compared next to the Universe if you ask me... Some people must just be too fat and get stuck in their relative rabbit hole.

According to the Factcheck article, College does challenge individual faiths, because it has a positive effect on people switching faiths. The problem is it doesn't shake faith in faith itself, which is what I think you were talking about.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^entr0py:
Sounds like godless liberal elitism to me. Slow down there Lenin H. Rockefeller
http://factcheck.org/2012/02/college-kills-faith/
That's disappointing. College should kill faith. Well, maybe not kill it, but certainly wound it. If you go to higher education for a few years and you aren't exposed to ideas that make you at least question your faith, you and/or your college have failed in your education.

Well, despite your condescending tone, you at least have a quote and make a valid point. Nice work.

I'll try to wrap my tiny brain around these life-shattering ideas. I'm not sure how well I'll do after how soundly you made fun of my education, or lack thereof. I thought I had a pretty good public school education. Thank you for showing me the light, that I was obviously the victim of liberal elites who spent too much time getting us to read and think rather than indoctrinating us. We didn't focus too much on what religion early Americans subscribed to, we just learned what they did. They called this "history." Maybe I'll come to an epiphany and find that I too want to write a revisionist history showing how all the founding fathers were really ancient pre-neo-cons, who went on religious crusades to oust any shred of diversion from the One True Faith from this, God's greatest country of all time. Amen.

But, until I get to that, might as well spout my hippie babble…

First, I'm not going to do your little workbook assignment. I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians." I'll also grant that Washington, Jefferson and Adams all went to church regularly and, at the birth of our country, "going to church" was a common social activity.

In this way, religion was woven into the fabric of American society. This is why, in my previous posts, I never said that all the founders were deists or non-believers, but that they understood deism and let it inform their understanding of their own, personal religion. More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government.

It would be incredulous if I had suggested that these men outright rejected Christianity. They did not, nor is it the purpose of the establishment clause to reject any religious sect (the establishment clause, and Santorum's misinterpretation of it, you'll remember, is the main subject of this comment thread).

As I said, you cite some valid evidence that the concept of god has always been a part of our government. But, you also haphazardly claim long-dead men to be zealous Christians when there are plenty of primary source documents to suggest they were not. I'm saving my big quote for something that has to do with the establishment clause directly, so you'll have to do your own homework if you want to find the many instances where all of the men you reference criticize organized religion. They are there, and if you like, we can have a quote war in later posts.

Here's my long quote response to you, more on topic than yours, I think:

"Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
-TJ 1802

I think this gets to the heart of the matter better than you or I ever could. For you, it shows that Jefferson wasn't shy about using religious rhetoric and proclaiming that he believed enough in Christianity to appeal to this group of clergymen on their home turf.

For me, it shows exactly (though more aptly worded than I could pull off) the point I and others have been making in this comment thread. Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect.

This is why some of us get bent out of shape when Santorum proves his ignorance on this issue. He may understand the establishment clause, but if so, he presents his position as an appeal to ultra-religious citizens. When he addresses arguments against his stance, he interprets them as "a religious person cannot participate in government."

I'll say it again: Religious citizens have just as much right to participate in government as anyone else. But, their opinions, if they are to be considered in an official capacity, must stand on their own merit. Laws are not just if their only basis is: Jesus says so.

You're a smart guy, right? You have all that fancy schooling. So, tell me you get this.

Finally, if you would, please expand on your comment: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I'm curious on who you consider "moral and religious" and what we should do with those heathens who aren't.



>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sorry to tell you but you're a victim of poor public education. The government was never intended to be secular, it was intended to represent the people it served, people who were and still are predominantly Christian.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams
As far as Deism goes, go ahead and make your case. I'll just warn you that the evidence is not in your favor. Most of the founders were Christians, some of them even attended seminary.
Before you reply, try answering these questions if you can:
1) Why did the first session of congress open with a 3 hour prayer and bible study?
2) Why did George Washington make this proclamation honoring the constitution?
"By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Go: Washington"
3) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he attend church every sunday..in the house of representitives?
4) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he sign a treaty appointing federal funds to Christian missionaries to build a church and evangelize?
5) Why did Jefferson sign presidential documents "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
6) Why were there state churches, and why did many states have in their constitutions that only Christians could serve in high level offices?
7) Why didn't Jefferson change the policy of the bible as the primary read in public schools when he was head of the Washington DC school board?
>> ^LukinStone:
>> ^lantern53:
It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.

Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.
The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.
Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.
You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.
As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.
Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.
And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.
What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"
Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.
Try again.

Standard right wing hypocrisy. It's OK for ME to go to college and get an education, but if YOU go to college, you'll magically turn into a godless hippy liberal bent on indoctrination.

Don't go to college and be "indoctrinated" but sit there and cheer while I make my speech and indoctrinate you so you vote for me so I can indoctrinate you with the bible.

Once again, the right uses words it has no clue what it really means. Like freedom, like traditional marriage, but the definitions all follow one central theme:

Right wing definition of traditional marriage: I can marry who I want, but not you.
Right wing definition of freedom: I can do things that infringe on your freedom, but not you.
Right wing definition of reproductive rights: I can have an abortion, but not you.
Right wing definition of education: I can get an education, but not you.

Common theme = selfishness personified

>> ^entr0py:

Sounds like godless liberal elitism to me. Slow down there Lenin H. Rockefeller
http://factcheck.org/2012/02/college-kills-faith/
That's disappointing. College should kill faith. Well, maybe not kill it, but certainly wound it. If you go to higher education for a few years and you aren't exposed to ideas that make you at least question your faith, you and/or your college have failed in your education.

And here's Obama's actual quote:

Obama, Feb. 24, 2009: And so tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option.

Sounds like godless liberal elitism to me. Slow down there Lenin H. Rockefeller

http://factcheck.org/2012/02/college-kills-faith/

I'm sorry to tell you but you're a victim of poor public education. The government was never intended to be secular, it was intended to represent the people it served, people who were and still are predominantly Christian.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

As far as Deism goes, go ahead and make your case. I'll just warn you that the evidence is not in your favor. Most of the founders were Christians, some of them even attended seminary.

Before you reply, try answering these questions if you can:

1) Why did the first session of congress open with a 3 hour prayer and bible study?

2) Why did George Washington make this proclamation honoring the constitution?

"By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington"

3) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he attend church every sunday..in the house of representitives?

4) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he sign a treaty appointing federal funds to Christian missionaries to build a church and evangelize?

5) Why did Jefferson sign presidential documents "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"?

6) Why were there state churches, and why did many states have in their constitutions that only Christians could serve in high level offices?

7) Why didn't Jefferson change the policy of the bible as the primary read in public schools when he was head of the Washington DC school board?

>> ^LukinStone:
>> ^lantern53:
It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.

Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.
The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.
Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.
You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.
As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.
Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.
And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.
What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"
Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.
Try again.

>> ^lantern53:

It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.


Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.

The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.

Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.

You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.

As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.

Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.

And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.

What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"

Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.

Try again.

>> ^lantern53:

It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.


what lukinstone is referring to is that many of the original founders were deists and is not contended by historians.many writings of jefferson in particular... to be specific.

your final point is so chock full of WTF i wouldnt even know where to begin but i do heartily agree that santorum has the right to believe whatever he wishes to believe and also has the right to base those beliefs on his religious inclinations
BUT....
i have a serious problem with those who identify with being a conservative, who chant the mantra of freedom and liberty and who then turn around and find it totally acceptable to legislate MY freedom and MY liberty simply based on their religious convictions.

that, my friend..is the epitome of hypocrisy.

It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?

Who was their God?

And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?

Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.

If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.

3 cheers for godless heathens.