Actually, although I agree with this principle fully, I don't see Kennedy as going even this far. It may be part of what he meant, but what he said shows that he was talking about political choices being dictated to people by the clergy. That was the issue when Kennedy was running. (I remember that much; Kennedy-Nixon was the first election to which I paid any attention.) People didn't want the Pope running the United States and they were afraid that would happen because a Catholic has to submit to the Pope. That's what he meant by the separation of church and state being absolute: No church heirarchy has the right, or should have the right, to dictate political choices in America, because no church has any power over the state. And not only do I agree with him fully on that, I don't even see how anyone can honestly disagree with him. Santorum, a devout Catholic himself, should be the first to agree with what Kennedy was actually saying (if you pay attention to his words and not just pick a phrase or two and give it the meaning you want it to have). Santorum is just playing to the "let's legislate morality for everyone, even those who do not share our beliefs" crowd, by making it look like Kennedy said something he never did. (And which wouldn't be particularly bad even if he did say it.) I would so much rather have JFK in the White House today than Santorum, Romney or Obama, that there is no comparison. "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country."
a "warning".... six years ago.... over ONE sermon in an otherwise very politically active church... not exactly a trend. i did say "pretty much" - there are always exceptions.
someone is dropping the ball if they do not, upon next interviewing Santorum, ask him directly: "what will you do, as president, if the Pope gives you a specific instruction on how to act?"
And then, when he says he won't govern according to what the Pope tells him, ask him "Then why are you disagreeing with Kennedy?"
John Oliver on The Daily Show last week laid out, rather graphically, how dramatically blatant Santorum's statements have been in comparison to the other GOP candidates. That Santorum has been able to get this far without the party bosses bitch slapping him does not bode well at all. Its essentially turning the election into a choice between the ax murdering lunatic and the kid who sniffed too much glue in high school. That's not merely far from ideal, its a few millimeters shy of a worst case scenario. Nor is it likely to be corrected any time soon, which means that the 2016 election will be little better.
I am hoping that Santorum wins the whole shebang, including the general election. Maybe then another country will consider attacking us for our fundamentalist/extremist views. We could use some forced population control. It is a shame for the history books that Michelle Bachmann dropped out, and that Sarah Palin never seriously considered it. God help us if Romney, Gingrich, or Obama win. They're all interchangeable.
Now that you mention it, I think I almost wish she was running over Sanctorum, at least. Not that I'd vote for her, but she was just a mere dingbat and not so blatantly open with her ideas. That's only if Obama loses this election. Once it's open game for either party, you'll see them get hush-hush again. I can't remember the issue of religion coming up at all last go-around.
A huge number of 501(c)(3)s, churches included, have had their tax-exempt statuses revoked, largely for failure to file paperwork. (This is one reason why many small nonprofits should consider going under the umbrella of a community foundation if they're not big enough to have a staff person who keeps track of such things.) I haven't been able to find any actual numbers on churches losing their tax-exempt status for political activity.
It seems the good GOP candidates all knew Obama was likely to win this year because they all stayed out waiting for 2016. It's really hard to unseat a sitting President so the only ones willing to try were the really bad candidates who knew they'd never get another chance.
Bush 2.0 ran on religion and McCain suddenly embraced religion in '08, and the other GOP candidates that year largely waved their beliefs proudly.
More frothy goodness from Santorum http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/santorum-ill-die-stop-same-sex-marriages One wonders how it is this committed Catholic is so obsessed with the church's view of contraception and not at all interested in their view of the death penalty?
Who? I've yet to see anythign which indicates he's any saner than his nutjob of a father. Who? As in Chris "Thanks for asking, but no, for the umpteenth time now, I am not interested in running for President, so please stop asking" Christie? You think that if the party bosses wanted him to run they wouldn't be able to get him traction in short order? Who? And being hated by the Left is hardly qualification for office. Who? So? What does experience in office have to do with it? For many in the GOP not being in office would be a major selling point (see the people who supported Cain, for example). Remember right after the '08 elections when people said that Bobby "Rick Santorum makes me look like a lefty" Jindal was going to be the hope of the GOP in '12? That turned out well, didn't it? He didn't fall out of favor because of his religious views, nope. He fell out of favor for having the misfortune of lambasting the government for spending a few million on volcano monitoring, only to have (almost as if it were a sign from Gawd) a volcano erupt in Alaska almost immediately after. If the party wanted a discussion other than on how to take America into the 12th century, then how those people were positioned wouldn't have mattered! The part would have started the buzz machine rolling for those folks. The fact that Santorum even got one dime in campaign contributions after he announced he was running for President, much less somehow landed a sugar daddy, should have been a giant fucking "red alert" warning to the party. Having Santorum announce that he was running is no different than David Duke announce it, I'd expect the GOP to come out swinging against him, and they damn sure should have done the same with Santorum. Oh, come on. Pawlenty had as much appeal as generic toe jam. Additionally, if the GOP truly believes that Obama's running the country into the ground (as they claim), then they absolutely should have their "A" squad out running, rather than the "C" and "Z" squad they've got running now. Its a helluvalot easier to do something productive with an airplane when its nosed down and heading towards the ground, than it is when its a smoking hole. Furthermore, by allowing Santorum (and his ilk, Cain, Gingrich, and Paul are little different) to have any traction in the GOP primaries, the GOP is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. Because they've so incited the general public against them with the recent birth control nonsense, they're eroding any chances of making significant gains in either the House or Senate this fall, so we'll have more of the status quo, and when the midterms roll around in '14, you can expect the Dems to hammer the shit out of the Republicans over their stance on birth control, thus chopping their numbers again, and making it that much harder for them in '16. Especially if they happen to take the White House, something I see as I highly unlikely unless they throw the religious nutters under the bus and drive over them repeatedly.
