What the hell is wrong with this guy? At least he's now trying to run in an election against a guy from the 20th century instead of from the 13th. Leave it to delusional Christian lunatics to think that just because I don't want my tax dollars to pay for their fucking Nativity Scenes, means they're barred from running for public office.
He wants the government to stay out of the church's business, but he wants the government to enforce policies, on others, based on his religious beliefs.
What policy of his religious beliefs is he asking the government to enforce.
Even something like overturning Griswold, which I don't approve of, would not be asking the government to "enforce" anything. It would be more of the nature of mandating they don't do anything.
Where has he called for the government "enforcing" his beliefs?
I've been out of the country, so I may have missed something.
Our governor is now known as the trans-vaginal probe guy. I wish I was kidding.
I heard about it. Although I didn't know that Santorum was pushing for it. Did he come out for it? After all, he is the one you were talking about. Or are you changing subjects?
In any event, you have to understand that the party that wants more laws is the party that imposes its will the most. That is the nature of law.
I would bet the family farm that the GOP, even Santorum, want to enact far fewer laws.
...although, I doubt Santorum would be in favor of it. I'm sure he'd prefer an outright ban on abortion, at least judging from his rhetoric.
I dunno about that, in regards to the laws. The GOP has been pretty active in enacting laws that target the rights of women and homosexuals.
or a special group.
They are human beings just like the rest of us, whether they be male or female. The only difference is that they like to play with different toys.
Oh, and they want special rules passed in their favor because they like to play with different toys but that is a whole 'nother story . . . . lol!
There are two sexes -- male and female. Calling someone a homosexual is no different than calling them an introvert or an extrovert. Trying to distinguish people based on how they like to play with their sexual organs is nothing more than trying to draw attention and create more confusion in an already totally confused world. LOL!
...but they are a separate group, under the law. In the state of Virginia, it is illegal to fire me from a job if I'm straight. It IS legal to fire me if I'm gay.
I don't really buy the argument that gays have the right to marry, so long as it's the opposite sex. That marrying who they want to marry merits a "special" right. No straight person would want to marry someone of the same sex, and no gay person would want to marry someone of the opposite sex. It seems like a weak argument to me. I'm not sure if that is what you were hinting at.
criminalize abortion based on their religious beliefs regarding when a human life starts.
He may very well favor that on a belief basis, but he is not advocating it.
The left has always tried to impose its religious views on the nation.
Talk about the Civil Right struggle for 30 minutes without REV. King, REV Jackson.
Obama just called on black churches to get involved.
The Catholic Church has been a strong vocal opponent of capital punishment. The Church has taken a very liberal position on entitlements.
In fact, the Church supported Obama Care before they realized it would apply to them. Of course, when the Bishops were supporting health care, I don't know one lib who argued they should keep out of politics.
I have no problem with religious people participating in the public square. I don't even have a problem with them running for office. But isn't there a difference between Martin Luther King using religion to advocate for equal rights and a catholic GOP candidate using religion to advocate to take away the rights of particular groups?
Whenever the religious right advocates a position, they are told to keep churches out of politics.
King used his pulpit for what he believed in.
I am not sure what right you are referring to, but assuming there some, there is little difference.
Every law takes away a right. The law the banned discirimination in restaurants, which I agree with and support, takes away the owners right to refuse service to someone. He may be wrong, but he had that right before and it was taken away.
Even "fairness" in taxation takes away someone's property.
King (and you) like churches active when they are things you agree with. But when it is something you don't agre with, there should be a separation.
Phil, there is a difference here. When the Catholic church advocates against the death penalty, no one is demogagued. They don't use my tax dollars to promote this idea. They don't try to teach this in a biology class, or any other public school class.
I have long argued here that we're born with natural rights: the right to do everything. As you said, every law takes away a right. Some rights are deemed "inalienable", and some are not. Thus, some rights have more importance than others. MrNoT's right to murder doesn't trump Pria's right to live. A religious candidate's right to demogague a minority doesn't trump a minority's right to seek equal protection under the law. How I feel on the subject has no bearing on this. Surely, you can't have an attitude of moral relativism on this, can you?