I fear Santorum was ahead of time
Who remembers when Rick Santorum ran his theocratic 2012 campaign? Let’s review a couple of things.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/santorum-says-he-almost-threw-up-after-reading-jfk-speech-on-separation-of-church-and-state/2012/02/26/gIQA91hubR_blog.html
———Snip
“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said. “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.”
———Snip
We have a theocrat who came out of nowhere to take the gavel, though thankfully doesn’t have the votes to enact such an agenda through Congress, at least not yet, citing the separation of church and state as a misnomer.
We have Three Names pushing and touting Christian Nationalism, Bobo thinking the church is supposed to direct the state (it isn’t), when in fact, the separation of church and state goes both ways.
If the separation of church and state didn’t go both ways, why have presidents, Democrat and Republican, even Reagan, touting the necessity for the separation of church and state and the line of command no worship?
If the separation of church and state was only to protect the church and not the state, almost 250 years after the signing of the Declaration, not been a theocracy all this time?
Exhibit two
https://swampland.time.com/2012/02/14/rick-santorum-wants-to-fight-the-dangers-of-contraception/
———Snip
‘One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”
It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act.’
———Snip
We know Clarence would like to revisit Griswold, we know Jacky Eubanks, a failed candidate for the Michigan House in 2022, said she’d have voted to ban birth control.
Which leads me to my next and final example…
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/laura-chapin/2012/01/06/rick-santorum-even-opposes-birth-control
———Snip
‘Santorum also opposes the predecessor to Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a constitutional right to privacy in 1965. Griswold negated a Connecticut state law banning the use of contraception by married couples. The day before the Iowa caucuses, Santorum told ABC's Jake Tapper, "It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have."’
———Snip
The classic, ‘I’m not for oppression, I just support states rights line.’
We know how dangerous states rights can be, and when it comes to individual liberty, states shouldn’t be allowed to pass laws concerning these matters, and that doesn’t decrease the size of government, it increases it - taking away your individual liberty and giving it to the legislature.
We know conservatives don’t believe in the right to privacy, they destroyed Roe with the sham that was the Dobbs decision by an illegitimate, dishonest Court.
We know they want states rights to ban contraceptives, to ban same-sex marriage, to ban same-sex relationships and to impose their worldview of the Bible, a book which is believed by faith and not facts, on the rest of us, even though freedom of religion and freedom from religion applies to all.
Furthermore, the exact words verbatim of separation of church and state may not appear in the Constitution, but I believe the principle does - Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion (also applies to the states thanks to the Incorporation Doctrine), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The freedom to have any faith, or no faith at all.
And I’m supposed the founders fled the oppressive Church of England just so they could have a theocracy here? I don’t think so.
Nobody’s saying a person of faith isn’t allowed to serve in government, but they cannot use that faith to govern the rest of us.
The good news is, I like at all the backlash Dobbs has caused, how we’ve won more elections, and I also think the majority of Americans don’t want theocracy.
That doesn’t change, however, that they’re pushing harder than ever before to make this a theocracy. I’ve always said I’ve feared a Dominionist more than I’ve feared a Jihadist, and these people are validating such fears.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Just ewwww…
Not for the prudish, squeamish, or susceptible to word pictures. Lol. Click at your risk. Enough caveats? Lolol
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Santorum
Thank you Dan Savage…the gift that keeps on giving.
It's not influence that they really want.
It's total rule.
What if it's not your church?
'
