Quote:
Originally Posted by djplong
I watched a clip of his interview where he tried to explain that.
He dug a hole even deeper. He said that he didn't like the idea of having to have no faith to be heard in the public square - WHICH WAS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT JFK SAID.
JFK said he wanted people of *ALL* faiths to be heard in the public square. Santorum hears this and somehow replaces the "all" with "no".
I can easily see Santorum disliking JFK over that speech. JFK was answering critics who feared that the Vatican would hold sway over US policies if a Catholic was elected President. JFK specifically said the separation of Church and State was absolute. This is diametrically opposed to Rick Santorum's ideas of how (correct me if I'm wrong) Church can be very intertwined with State.
...the snarky side of me would add "...well, only *approved* or *real* religions" as I don't think Santorum would take even the most peace-loving Imam as an advisor. To be honest, I wonder if he believes that Romney is a Christian. I'm not making an accusation, I'm just curious in light of the comments he made about Obama that he later clarified.
|
Strict Constitutionalists know there's no blamed thing as "separation of church and state" anywhere in the Constitution, and that is what Santorum is addressing. Let's be at least a little "real" here.
The courts extrapolated some text from the body of a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote. It was not the Constitution, but in a letter that these words appeared. The secularists mined these words from this letter and elevated them to be the most sacred tenet of the secularist's view of Religion in the public square.
Disagreeing with JFK is not hate. It's only hate if you disagree with Obama, I've been told.
All your innuendo and unsupported "wondering" is "snarky". Believe me.
You're entitled to be snarky if you want, but it is what it is.
An Imam as an advisor?............you gotta be kidding.