curvemudgeon: (fail)
[personal profile] curvemudgeon
Guest column: Forefathers fought for religious freedom
by Rick Santorum :
In the heat of the American Revolution in 1777, the Continental Army was struggling to muster shoes and victory. What were two of our most heroic founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, doing? They were arguing in favor of religious liberty, giving us the precursor to what we now know as the Religion Clause of our Constitution's First Amendment - the heartbeat of our Constitution.

Fast forward to recently when President Barack Obama claimed the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), defining marriage for federal law as one man and one woman, was "legally indefensible."
This may be the biggest historical ellipsis ever. From 1777 to 2011 in one fell handwave of attempted revisionist history.
Intellectually, morally, and constitutionally President Obama's claim is absurd. And it is a dagger aimed at the heart of a core constitutional value: the free exercise of religion.

Schools, the media, and even some politicians often like to remind us of the first part of our First Amendment - that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - but tend to omit the remainder: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Rick Santorum want you to rest assured that he will protect and defend your God given right to be a bigoted asshole while still qualifying for handouts and special considerations from the government, but you've got to be the right kind of bigoted asshole...
Last week, ignored it was
['da fuck? Yoda pulling a Kanye West here?]
I believe if two adults of the same sex want to have a relationship that is their business. But when they ask society to give that relationship special recognition and privileges, then we should be able to have a rational debate about whether that is good public policy.

We should also ensure the debate takes cognizance of its constitutional implications. And with the President's decision, the free exercise of religion will be eviscerated.

Just five years ago, Catholic Charities of Boston announced it was getting out of the adoption business as a result of Massachusetts "orientation discrimination laws." Catholic Charities had a terrible choice: continue finding homes for hard to place kids at the expense of their religious principles or stop providing adoption services and keep the faith. It was a choice they should have never had to make.
...and the right kind is the kind that's a bigoted asshole for Jesus.
Make no mistake about it: with this decision, traditional Christian...beliefs about make those religions "unfit" to work in the fields of foster children and adoption.
Pssst...Rick, do you really want to go there? Do you really want to discuss the fitness of the Catholic religion and children? Really?

Freedom of religion

Date: 2011-03-08 10:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
When Southern apologists say that the Civil War was caused by "states' rights issues", what they really mean is "the right of states to own slaves." Likewise, when people like Santorum talk about "religious freedom" WRT same-sex marriage, what they really mean is "the freedom to impose our religious beliefs on other people".

Re: Freedom of religion

Date: 2011-03-09 01:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
And let's not forget that freedom of religion doesn't in any way, shape, or form mean freedom from religion.

Re: Freedom of religion

Date: 2011-03-09 03:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Yeah, seconded.


curvemudgeon: (Default)

December 2013

8910 11121314

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 01:21 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios