Leave A Comment

Leave a comment ?

10 Responses to Santorum ‘almost threw up’ when reading JFK’s speech about the need for a separation between church and state

  1. Steward knows f*ck all about history. It’s only in the last 50 years or so that the concept ‘Separation of Church and State’ was twisted to mean the ‘Elimination of Religion’.

    JFK’s was the first Catholic president, and his opponents pandered heavily to anti-catholic bigotry in the election campagin. Although his speech was intended to lay to rest innuendo that he’d be taking orders from the Pope, it’s twisted today to mean that America today should be free from religion.

    That’s bullshit too. For example 1800 Congress authorized the use of the CAPITOL Building as a Church. And it was used as a STATE-FUNDED church for decades. The first edition of Bible ever printed in the United States was Funded and Printed by the Congress and also Recomended by Congress as being ‘Suitable for use in the Nation’s Schools.

    So much for the Secular nature of the Republic. Do some research instead of believing the Hollywood’s talking heads.

    Reply

    • If you think church/state separation means “elimination of religion” then *you* don’t know anything about religion. Originally it wasn’t put there just to protect us from the evils of religion in politics, it was also created to protect churches from the influence of politics.

      Some people just need to understand that if you allow one religion to be favored in front of others, you open up an ugly can of worms that could some day force the current majority of Christians to be repressed by another dogma.

      When has theocracy ever been a positive thing? If you put the bible in charge, the first thing that will go away is freedom of religion.

      Reply

      • Correction: “Then you don’t know anything about *history*.”

        Reply

      • Theocracy? Who the hell is arguing for a theocracy? Not I. Neither was I arguing for one form of religion to be foremost over others. Read what I wrote again. I agree with the concept of there being no “State Religion.”

        Either you deliberately missed my point and are trying to distort what I wrote or you’re letting your own biases create meaning in my words that aren’t there.

        Read it again.

        Reply

    • Hiding what I wrote earlier is a typical example of how liberals react to facts and ideas they don’t like. I’m not surprised. Despite claiming to be open-minded your dogma always seeks to eliminate opposing views.

      I expect the next response will be either more censorship or else name-calling.

      You fear the truth.

      Reply

  2. How I know that there’s no such thing as a government drive to “eliminate” religion: athiest organizations still have to pay taxes.

    Reply

  3. Hamm172 should read a little less Xian propaganda and a little more history:

    Robert Aitken of Philadelphia was printing Bibles in America as early as 1771 and again in 1778 – and while he did some printing for Congress, this was his own business venture.
    On January 21, 1781, Aitken petitioned the Unites States Congress to authorize, and if possible even fund, the printing of a complete Bible in the English language of the King James Version. The reason was that the “King James Version” was technically under copyright of the British crown and Aitken wanted assurance that Congress wouldn’t legally pursue him on the subject.
    On September 10, 1782, Aitken received authorization from the United States Congress print the bible in America, but they did not fund it. Aitken funded and printed the edition, which sold very well.
    The bible – in many forms and versions – is still considered “Suitable for use in the Nation’s Schools” as a reference work. Most schools have several Bibles, as well as other religious works like the Koran and the Hindu Vedas.

    And while the capitol building was used as a church (on Sundays, when the building was unused) before the civil war it was not state funded, except perhaps for the use of the space. Ministers from many denominations were invited to preach there and “pass the collection plate” if they so chose – but the US government provided no funding. Thomas Jefferson considered the use acceptable as it showed preference to no particular religion and welcomed all faiths, and attendance was voluntary.

    Reply

    • Donation plates are funding. That’s where the donations go.

      Chances are the heavily religious members of congress at the time gave a little or a lot.

      Most schools do have the Koran in them. It’s printed in invisible ink and sits rolled up next to the toilets.

      Reply

  4. Inb4 errbody gets all mad and shit.

    Oh no!

    Reply

  5. If JFK were alive and saw that a good portion of Americans (and others) got their political information and opinion from a stale comedian he’d probably shit his pants a lot more.

    Reply

Leave a Comment



Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Architecture Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas