*dupeof http://videosift.com/video/Obamaville-Santorums-Dystopian-Attack-Ad

http://videosift.com/video/Obamaville-Santorums-Dystopian-Attack-Ad

i am pulling for santorum/gingrich republican ticket.

but alas, it would take a miracle...

>> ^Darkhand:

I think everyone is too quick to put the racism tag on things.


Racist or not, it's a despicable comment.

>> ^notarobot:

>> ^VoodooV:
I'll give him credit, Santorum's comments about what he thought about the comment were the right thing to say.

The comment is very distasteful. What did Santorum say about it?


Santorum's reaction: "It’s absurd. No we’re not pretending it’s anybody but shooting pistols. It’s a very terrible and horrible remark and I’m glad I didn’t hear it.”

>> ^VoodooV:

I'll give him credit, Santorum's comments about what he thought about the comment were the right thing to say.


The comment is very distasteful. What did Santorum say about it?

I'll give him credit, Santorum's comments about what he thought about the comment were the right thing to say.

Woe to America if Santorum is elected! Woe!

I don't know what that means because I'm an ignorant (United States of) American>> ^Bruti79:

>> ^rottenseed:
WTF Canada? You were my escape plan if Santorum wins...

We had a chance with Jack Layton, but he passed away =(

>> ^rottenseed:

WTF Canada? You were my escape plan if Santorum wins...


We had a chance with Jack Layton, but he passed away =(

WTF Canada? You were my escape plan if Santorum wins...

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^RadHazG:
Yes but Santorum equating being gay to bestiality isn't a similar treatment? Spare us your ignorant ranting you two, the Catholic church has done nearly to the same thing to those it opposes over the years. Have some of your own medicine for a change.

I don't like this whole "The Catholic Church" distinction. To me it's like when people blame America when they're really talking about just the government. The Catholic Church is a misnomer in my opinion that doesn't represent the majority of Catholics let alone it's churches and their individual leaderships.


Truth, however that is the difference between "The Catholic Church" and "Catholics". The Church as a whole i.e. the majority of its upper power structure and the ones responsible for speaking for it have absolutely done this. I wouldn't make expect every or even most Catholics to necessarily follow the same line as the Church itself (see: women's contraception).

>> ^RadHazG:

Yes but Santorum equating being gay to bestiality isn't a similar treatment? Spare us your ignorant ranting you two, the Catholic church has done nearly to the same thing to those it opposes over the years. Have some of your own medicine for a change.


I don't like this whole "The Catholic Church" distinction. To me it's like when people blame America when they're really talking about just the government. The Catholic Church is a misnomer in my opinion that doesn't represent the majority of Catholics let alone it's churches and their individual leaderships.

Yes but Santorum equating being gay to bestiality isn't a similar treatment? Spare us your ignorant ranting you two, the Catholic church has done nearly to the same thing to those it opposes over the years. Have some of your own medicine for a change.

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

You certainly are a master of quoting. Too bad you don't go the extra mile and use your brain to analyze what is actually being said, put it in context and honestly apply it to the discussion we're having. The weird thing I've noticed is you quote me, James Madison and the Constitution of North Carolina all in the same manner. Not really engaging much with the ideas and myopically drawing conclusions filtered through your allegiance to Christian dogma.

I guess I asked for it. Serves me right. When dealing with a Christian I should have expected every tiny detail to be taken literally. Let me be blunt: I was joking about getting into a quote war.

What I was doing was attacking the foundations of your argument, and providing evidence for my positions. What you have provided is a lot of speculation based on loose interpretations of our history through a secular lens. I would say I have had some success being that the claims you are making have become progressively more modest:

first post: "Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men"

second post: "I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians."

third post: "Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied)"

first post: "Yes, our government was intended to be secular."

second post: "More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government."

I'm going to be sparse in my reply. Since you have seen fit to do a hit and run, I don't intend to spend much time on this.

3. Your point, which seems to be that Christianity has always existed and been an important part of American history. Let me be clear: On this, I agree with you. But not when you continue a step further, saying religion was meant to perform a controlling role in government and that government works better because of it.

No, my main point was that the establishment clause does not mean seperation of church and state, which is the basis for all of this hullabaloo. You've basically conceded this point to me:

"I think the purpose of the establishment clause was to protect the country from any one religious sect from dominating the others. Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied), even the ones who were influenced by Deism, the purpose of explicitly stating that there would be no nationally sanctioned religion was, initially, to keep one sect of Christianity from gaining control over the others."

You're admitting here that the purpose of the establishment clause was to keep one denomination from gaining control over the others. It wasn't to protect the country from Christian theism, it was protect the country from a particular flavor of Christian theism from gaining power. What "religion" meant was denomination religion, not doctrinal religion. So if this was the purpose of the establishment clause, it can't mean what you argue it does elsewhere.

"And yes, I knew what I was doing when I included the letter from Jefferson as my sole quote. I'd hoped it'd cause you to pause and reflect, but you were too busy getting up on that high horse with Jesus to care."

I think the letter is a valid example of an instance where we have one of the architects of the Constitution explaining, in his own words, why it is written as it is. I think Jefferson's aim was to keep religion and state separate, and his opponents called him an atheist for it. As you pointed out and I agree, he was indeed a Christian


This is a bizzare comment and it shows you still haven't grasped my point. If you knew what you were doing, you would known that the whole idea of "seperation of church and state" is based on that letter. Obviously I was well aware of that, and fundementally disagreed with that interpretation, which is why I was busy providing you evidence that proved that this was a misinterpretation of Jeffersons intent. If he meant what you and others say he did, then he wouldn't have acted so contrarily to it during his time in government. Barbar got it; he knew exactly what I was saying. It has apparently gone completely over your head.

Where you see a "shocking moral decline" I see human rights being extended to all genders and races. All too often nowadays, organized religion supports authoritarian ideas. It often supports unhealthy psychology and grassroots movements that would be laughably anti-scientific if the situation weren't so serious.

When I say "shocking moral decline", I am not talking about womens rights or homosexual rights. I am talking about degeneration of civil society, the increase in crime, drug use, teen pregnancy, and many other factors which paint of picture of a country that is morally debased and getting worse by the year. I'm not saying it was ever perfect, but it had a foundation; biblical morality. Now that the foundation has been removed we are in a moral free fall.

Here are some statistics:

http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html

Humanity might have needed ages of development aided by organized religion to figure out how to behave morally. But, we're smarter now. We can objectively consider our history and defer to our own individual morally whenever an ancient book that sometimes advocates slavery, infanticide and magic would tell us we are sinning for even thinking about how we can make things better. Don’t worry, though the "whole thing will crumble," we've got a solid secular foundation, preserving the ideas most important in building a better future.

Perhaps you're just very young and have no context, but in my observation things in this country have gotten palpably worse in the short time I've been alive, and most of that time I have been observing this I was agnostic. Worse yet, this effect appears to be expodential. Not only is America losing its place on the worlds stage, but internally it has become something like babylon.

The bible doesn't say you need to be a Christian to be moral. It says we all have a god given conscience that tells us right and wrong. This relativism that you're talking about is exactly the problem. If its your truth and my truth, then there is no truth, and no one has a rock to stand on. The thing about Truth is that it the same regardless of when it was written or where it came from. It is the same regardless of what people believe. And the bible is true. There is a God, and He has imposed a moral law, and those who violate it will face judgement. That is why Christ came, to save us from our sins, because all have sinned and fallen short. Are humans smarter? In terms of knowledge, sure. In terms of wisdom? Not a bit. Human beings are no more wise than they were when the bible was written. The words of Christ are wise and they are for all time. In them, there is life, and that abundantly.
>> ^LukinStone: