Faith

Gingrich Praises JFK Speech About Religion — The Same One That Almost Made Santorum ‘Throw Up’

Gingrich Calls JFK Speech About Religion Remarkable

Republican presidential candidate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich speaks during a campaign rally at the State Capitol on Monday, Feb. 27, 2012 in Nashville, Tenn. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — Newt Gingrich disagrees with Rick Santorum’s harsh criticism of the famous speech on religion that John F. Kennedy delivered as he campaigned to become the nation’s first Roman Catholic president. As you’ll recall, Santorum said that he almost “threw up” after reading the speech about church-state separatism.

(Related: Santorum Says Separation of Church & State Not ‘Absolute’)

Gingrich and Santorum, each a Catholic seeking the GOP nomination, view Kennedy’s words differently. While Santorum says he felt sick after reading Kennedy’s 1960 speech and believes it advocated absolute separation of church and state.

Gingrich Calls JFK Speech About Religion Remarkable

“The first substantive line says ‘I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.’ I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said over the weekend on ABC‘s ‘This Week.’“ ”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.”

Gingrich, though, takes a radically different stance and calls it a “remarkable speech.” He told Fox News Channel on Tuesday that Kennedy was reassuring voters that he wouldn’t obey any foreign religious leader. Gingrich said Kennedy was declaring “that his first duty as president would be to do the job of president, and I think that’s correct.”

Gingrich Calls JFK Speech About Religion Remarkable

Here is a portion of Kennedy’s famed speech on faith — the tenets of which Santorum and Gingrich clearly disagree upon:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

Gingrich does share Santorum’s position on President Barack Obama, however. Gingrich said Obama’s administration is “anti-religious.”

Comments (84)

1 2
  • Peter Yohansen
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 2:50pm

    I can’t wait for this primary madness to end, then we can focus on building a candidate up instead of tearing all of them down.

    Report Post » Peter Yohansen  
  • JJohnGalt2
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 2:31pm

    EVANGELICALS are the American TALIBAN.

    EVANGELICALS = TALIBAN

    And Santorum is their leader. Santorum = Mullah Omar

    Report Post »  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 2:44pm

      How many people have evangelicals beheaded?

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • TeaPartyForRomney
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 2:45pm

      Shut up, I support Romney but your comments are idiotic. You are just another Dem/Paulbot trying to get Obama elected. Everyone has a place in our big tent, just not in our primary.

      This is a Republican Primary, shame on anyone trying to stuff our ballots with Dem votes. CLOSED BALLOTS ARE NEEDED.

      Report Post »  
    • JJohnGalt2
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 2:55pm

      Any Religous Zealot is equivalent to Taliban. Evangelicals are Religous Zealots, therefore they are equivalent to Taliban

      Wrong-Wing Santorum is wrong for the GOP, wrong for America.

      Again, the Evangelicals haved handed the Gov’t to the Democrats, except this time is at the absolute worse possibly time in our country’s history. Obama wins re-election in a landslide and our country is destroyed by the Socialists.

      Report Post »  
  • Andy Cooper
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 2:15pm

    Do you know what makes me throw up? Newt GinBLECH!

    Report Post » Andy Cooper  
    • TeaPartyForRomney
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 2:43pm

      Another thing that make me throw-up Rick Santorum trying to bring Democrats to pick our candidate. if Romney did it that would be just as bad because this is the Republican Primary, not theirs. They should not be able to hijack our election. I want closed elections, we pick our candidates, no one else.

      Then you see that everyone from Obama to Unions to Soros Groups are shelling out millions to overthrow Romney and now they are stuffing our ballots. There is something wrong with that.

      You know who a person’s enemy is by looking at who they attack.

      DEMOCRATS FOR RICK SANTORUM… FOR THE PRIMARY

      Report Post »  
    • MS-GlenNBC
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 6:03pm

      You two …

      K e e p ~ y o u r ~ h a n d s ~ o f f ~ m y ~ R o m n e y c a r e

      I love lakes tress and the Progressive Income Tax So does RomnObama…

      Report Post » MS-GlenNBC  
  • EmergingInThought
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 1:44pm

    It’s Ron Paul or bust. Santorum is the worst candidate I’ve seen come along in some time. I don’t see how someone can support such an angry and judgmental man. How can someone call themselves a Christian and vote for someone who can’t wait to go to war and ignores the Golden Rule?

    http://www.whatthehellbook.com/the-book/

    Report Post » EmergingInThought  
  • THX-1138
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 1:41pm

    It *so* doesn’t matter who the next president is.

    If it’s Obama we have a total collapse, ration cards, war, poverty, blah, blah, blah. Finally Americans might be slapped up side the head hard enough to actually wake the majority of them up.

    If it’s little Ricky or Romney or the Newt (or Peewee Herman for that matter) then we sputter along at a much slower pace toward The End.

    Governments *never* get smaller or less intrusive or more honest. They are Cancer. They are Fire. They eventually consume everything they touch.

    It is inevitable.

    I almost hope the Zero wins another four years and we get on with the destruction of America so that we can begin to create a new one. Perhaps we can learn for the mistakes we made on this one.

    Report Post » THX-1138  
  • kaygee
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 1:09pm

    if rick is nominee than only evangelicals will vote in general election then it is piece of cake for obama and end of the day gbtv members and santorum can keep birth control pill…

    Report Post »  
    • UBETHECHANGE
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 1:14pm

      Get real.

      Report Post »  
    • ZengaPA65
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 1:21pm

      Santorum makes me throw up.

      Report Post » ZengaPA65  
    • TeaPartyForRomney
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 1:26pm

      DEMOCRATS FOR RICK SANTORUM… IN THE GOP PRIMARY

      If anyone, besides Santorum, thinks that the democrats are voting for Santorum because of his economic plan they need to have their brains checked. The proof is in the pudding. MoveOn.org, the Unions, and Obama‘s campaign have sunk millions into Michigan to stop Romney in his ’home state.’

      This is evidence that the Democrats want Santorum to be the candidate because he would be the easiest to beat. Why else was Santorum at 2% for the whole race until the last two weeks. Then when his history came out and his poor debate performance happened his numbers tanked.

      ARE WE WILLING TO GIVE OBAMA ANOTHER FOUR YEARS.

      Report Post »  
  • UBETHECHANGE
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:32pm

    Give me Liberty or Give Me Death: Patrick Henry – 03/23/1775
    No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

    (cont)

    Report Post »  
    • UBETHECHANGE
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:36pm

      (cont) Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not [Jer. 5:21], the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss [Matt. 26:48]

      Report Post »  
    • teamarcheson
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 1:03pm

      Rocky… Rocky… Rocky…. Rocky…. Rocky…

      Rocky Santorum is still on his feet in the 6th round and no one thought he would make it through the 2nd one. Rocky Santorum is attracting white unemployed middle class Democrat voters that Obama abandoned.

      Rocky Santorum the Italian Stallion will beat the Black Bantam knocking his skinny butt all the way back to Chicago.

      Report Post »  
  • UBETHECHANGE
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:14pm

    Anybody else getting real sick of the Paulbots attacking religious liberty and screaming and whining that the GOP wants a theocracy?!? I am. They sound more and more like the secular leftist commies everyday.

    To have a theocracy in America, the Constitution must be replaced with a totalitarian dictator who speaks on God’s behalf (i.e., a revival of “the Divine Right of Kings” doctrine). I challenge anybody to identify which part of the “Religious Right” is calling for such a government.

    The rabid opposition to public religious expressions is often irrational, In fact, a New Jersey bill proposing that students begin each day by reciting the first 56 words from the Declaration of Independence was loudly denounced as “a thinly-veiled attempt to put prayer in schools” – the first step on the road to a – you guessed it – “theocracy!” Reading the actual wording of the Declaration of Independence leads to a theocracy??? It is time for that term to become anathema in public discourse.

    During the Civil Rights Era, we gradually learned that if certain pejoratives were invoked, the individual doing so was a racist. Similarly, today we need to learn that when the emotive and pejorative term “theocracy!” is invoked, it is usually by an intolerant secularist who wants all public religious expressions expunged from society.

    Report Post »  
    • justangry
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 1:26pm

      I don’t have a problem with religious liberty. I’m all for it. Your boy, however, talks about god-given rights, but voted to take them away, or has said that he supported those rights being taken away since he left the senate. And for the record, with these god-given rights that have been taken away, WE ARE ELECTING A DICTATOR for all practical purposes.

      Report Post » justangry  
    • TriforcePlayer
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 3:17pm

      The Paulbots are insane

      Report Post » TriforcePlayer  
    • techengineer11
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 4:32pm

      UBETHECHANGE: “Anybody else getting real sick of the Paulbots attacking religious liberty and screaming and whining that the GOP wants a theocracy?”

      That’s totally unfair. As an ardent supporter of Dr. Paul, I tend to think that Rick Santorum is exactly right in regards to religion in the public sphere; however as “justangry” pointed out Rick didn‘t always vote in a manner which lines up with what he’s saying today. That‘s ok with me in the sense that I will give him the benefit of the doubt on his religious views yet he didn’t take it to the next level in standing on the side of Freedom and Liberty when he had the opportunity in the Senate and even on the campaign trail today.

      Gingrich is attempting to obfuscate and demagogue on this issue because he knows the sheep are a little confused and that the Media is in full attack mode on ole Rick and religion. While Gingrich is technically correct (In the President doesn’t take orders from anyone) he knows and realizes that Rick is actually attempting to address the “spirit” behind the 1st am. Gingrich is simply piling on which is despicable imo.

      And of course the filthy Media is out in full force with the attack dogs. Even our very own FOX News is milking it for all the damgage they can get out of it..

      America can’t handle and is not ready for a Constitutional discussion on the 1st am. so Rick loses politically but he’s right on principle.

      Report Post » techengineer11  
    • justangry
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:26pm

      Exactly Tech. Us Paulbots do think Rick’s right on the 1st, but so does our boy. Check out the bills that he tried to pass regarding it…

      Religious Freedom Amendment. H.J.Res. 78, 1997-05-08 (cosponsor). Clarifies the “right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience” to include the right of prayer in public schools and other public property, and to prohibit state establishment of religion or requirements to participate in prayer.

      Hostettler amendment (Ten Commandments display): H.Amdt. 278, 2005-06-15 (voted in favor), amending H.R. 2862, 2005-06-10. Defunds the southern Indiana U.S. District Court judgment Russelburg v. Gibson County, which had directed the removal of a Ten Commandments display on the county courthouse lawn.

      Report Post » justangry  
  • rdk
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:13pm

    If a major election issue is religion, Obama wins.
    I thought it pretty clear that government does not interfere with religion and religious institutions do not interfere with government. Individuals within government and religious institutions can, of course, vocalize their opinions as citizens.

    Report Post »  
    • UBETHECHANGE
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:21pm

      You apparently don’t know the history of our country and the founding of it.

      Report Post »  
    • kfalcon22000
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:23pm

      What would you say when the current occupant of the white house is mounting an attack on religion? This itself is not new. Even President Reagan spoke about it. How does President Obama automatically win re-election if religion is one of the arguments?

      Report Post »  
    • Matty85
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 2:25pm

      Because those GOP candidates are taking their religious views on issues to new heights. It’s becoming a circus show. Everyone should be protected and treated equally in the eyes of the government. Forcing ones religious beliefs or running on it in the campaign trail is ludicrous! Not everyone shares those beliefs and to force them into law is not right.

      Report Post »  
  • expatinontariocanada
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:06pm

    Newt makes me want to throw up too.

    Report Post » expatinontariocanada  
  • UBETHECHANGE
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:57am

    Thomas Paine published his Age of Reason, which infuriated many of the Founding Fathers. John Adams wrote, “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.” Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, “[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.”

    Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine’s Age of Reason was “absurd and impious”; 4 Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine’s work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion”; John Witherspoon said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith”; and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation—a full-length rebuttal to Paine’s work. Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine’s work which he described as “the puny efforts of Paine.”

    Report Post »  
    • sickoftalking
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:11pm

      People, including conservatives, also tend to misportray the French Revolution as wholly atheistic or hostile to religion. The most well known atheist of the Enlightenment, Baron d’Holbach, was roundly criticized by all of the other French authors of the time, just as Thomas Paine was in America. His critics included Voltaire, who wrote a refutation of his work, and Rousseau, who was close friends with an abbot, Étienne Bonnot de Condillac, who was also another important philosopher at the time. There was a segment of radical revolutionaries that were anti-religious who were in power for a short period of time, that’s true. Even so, as deists, they tended to be just as hostile to atheism as they were towards religion.

      Report Post » sickoftalking  
    • UBETHECHANGE
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:23pm

      Do not school me on history.

      Report Post »  
    • JJohnGalt2
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 1:51pm

      We’ll school you on Logical thinking, and how not to take wordes out of context. Maybe someday your small evangelical mind will get a clue.

      Report Post »  
  • neverending
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:50am

    Is it at all possible that we could possibly get back to the issue of our COUNTRY HEADED OFF THE CLIFF??? Guess not – pretty sickening.

    Report Post »  
    • UBETHECHANGE
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:06pm

      If you think politicians are going to save this country you are sadly mistaken. Get real.

      Report Post »  
    • conservativejon
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:09pm

      we can walk AND chew bubble gum AT THE SAME TIME. i know we conservatives are talented

      Report Post »  
    • ACLUHater
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:10pm

      So does the N* wannabe Father “Phaker” ranting about whites, Jesse Hijackckson drooling over Obambi, and Hilary – the ugliest Secretary of State ever – campaigning in the ghetto church talking like a hoodlum mean that they also believe in the “separation”? If they do, their actions and ebonics don’t “jive”…

      Report Post »  
    • neverending
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:35pm

      @ubethechange – never said politicians would save the country did I? Just to update you I do get it – I get that only GOD can change this Country. Just kind of thought it might help to get to the real issues. Maybe you should get real!

      Report Post »  
  • UBETHECHANGE
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:50am

    What does Jeremiah 17: 9 have to do with the separation of powers between the three branches of government?
    The Founders’ desire to separate and check governmental power was rooted in the principle in Jeremiah 17:9: “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?” This verse encapsulated a prominent theological teaching among Puritans, Calvinists, and most other Christian movements and denominations: the “depravity of man”; that is, that the unrestrained heart of man moves naturally toward moral and civil degradation unless directly acted upon by the positive influence of God and religion. Because of this harmful tendency of man (especially when power is placed in his hands), the Founders believed that society would be much safer if all power did not repose in the same authority. Many of the Founders specifically cited this Biblical principle as the source of their reasoning on this aspect of our government.

    Report Post »  
  • Locked
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:39am

    I agree much more with Gingrich than Santorum here. JFK had to do his best to convince voters he wasn’t a puppet of the Vatican; similar to what Romney will go through with his Mormonism if he gets the candidacy.

    Despite his faults, Kennedy at least saved us from making the Cold War into World War III. For that he has my respect.

    Report Post »  
    • sickoftalking
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:49am

      I agree with Gingrich about the gist of the speech and think Santorum’s characterization of himself almost “throwing up” was an overreaction.

      However, if you actually get into the details of the speech, it was more liberal than is being reported. Kennedy states his position that any money going to parochial schools — which would happen under a school voucher system — would be Unconstitutional. He also implies that it would be wrong for churches to try to influence policy on things like abortion or marriage. So Kennedy’s vision of an “absolute” separation of church and state was pretty much the liberal point of view, which goes a bit beyond what the founders intended.

      Report Post » sickoftalking  
  • UBETHECHANGE
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:39am

    Noah Webster
    In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate – look to his character. . . . When a citizen gives his suffrage to a man of known immorality he abuses his trust; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor, he betrays the interest of his country.

    [Noah Webster, Letters to a Young Gentleman Commencing His Education to which is subjoined a Brief History of the United States (New Haven: S. Converse, 1823), pp. 18, 19.]

    When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, “just men who will rule in the fear of God.” The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be sqandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.

    [Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337

    Report Post »  
  • whatthecrazy
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:30am

    I think i’ll have brokered convention PLEASE,hey can it REALLY get any worse then where we are heading?Let’s be rebels with a cause eehh

    Report Post »  
  • SquidVetOhio
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:27am

    I was stationed on the U.S.S Kennedy. He was a Navy war hero. He would probably be a Republican today. That said, I would have voted for Nixon!

    Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
  • JJohnGalt2
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:23am

    When you study JFK closely, you begin to realize he was more conservative than 75% of the GOP is today. If people judge presidents by their sexcapades, then let us judge Evangelicals by their high profile preachers. Can you say?
    a. Jim Bakker
    b. Jimmie Swaggert
    There you go a couple great Americans the Evangelicals gave us.

    Report Post »  
    • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:58am

      And Ron Paul has… Robert Pape. Let’s not leave him out.

      Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
    • JJohnGalt2
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:06pm

      Has nothing to do with Ron Paul. This is about the 1st Amendment and how the evangelicals are destroying our country.

      I am NOT a Ron Paul supporter. Santorum is the one who is Dangerous, not Paul.

      Report Post »  
    • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:25pm

      We have one thing in common then… I am NOT a Ron Paul supporter either, but have to disagree… Ron Paul is WAY more dangerous than Santorum.

      Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
  • hauschild
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:21am

    These dudes are great! Each clamoring about how the other is more RINO.

    I tell ya, they’re a hoot!

    Report Post »  
    • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:34am

      Especially that Ron Paul guy… a Libertarian glomming on to the Republican Party for self serving reasons. Definately a RINO there.

      Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
    • hauschild
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:59am

      Don’t blame the messenger, Bubba.

      Report Post »  
    • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:05pm

      So who in your estimation is the “un-cola, er, un- RINO there messenger boy? Obama?

      Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
    • THXll38
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:52pm

      Paul is not a libertarian, he is a classical liberal aka little r republican. He is by far the most Constitutional conservative running in this race. That said, people like you do not enjoy liberty, and would rather sacrifice your liberty for security. That sir is scary.

      Report Post » THXll38  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:20am

    Good to see our candidates sticking to the issues that matter to America…52 year old speeches.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
  • JJohnGalt2
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:16am

    Santorum is a Very Dangerous politician. He has really step into it this time. Finally his True Colors have been exposed. Thank you evangelicals for providing the GOP with a hypocritical, pandering, religious zealot, you have given the democrats a landslide win in Nov. Obama will win and good-bye to the democratic republic. Obama re-election win rests solely at the feet of the Evangelicals.

    Report Post »  
    • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:51am

      I remember when Ron Paul was pandering to evangelicals in Iowa. Now was that ridiculous or what? I also remember when he was pandering to racists and anti-semites back in the day for some Congressional run cashola. It was like a “gold mine” when he, Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard found the membership list to “The Spotlight” anti-semitic paper and, well… the rest is history.

      Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
    • JJohnGalt2
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:08pm

      You are using Saul Alinsky tactics. You really hate the truth, and evidently the US Constitution.

      Report Post »  
    • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:28pm

      JJGALT. Lol. Saul Alinsky tactics….

      Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
    • girlnurse
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 2:09pm

      It is pretty obvious the GOP and the DEMS are one and the same….they have a deal with the DEMS….8 years and 8 years….and to the Ron Paul hater…Wow…YOU are everything that is wrong with this country! Go back to your Obama lovers website! We don’t have a great list of guys for sure…but Ron Paul is the ONLY one for ending the fed, the IRS, EPA, ALL the unholy wars….and getting us back to constitutional freedom in this country! Ron Paul 2012!

      Report Post » girlnurse  
  • SpankDaMonkey
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:10am

    .
    Why does the Kennedy family, one that’s full of Drug Addicts, Murder’s, Rapist’s, Womanizer’s, Bootleggers and Crook’s get such high praise?…….

    My Bad Ya’ll, I forgot their Democrat’s…………..

    Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
  • The_Jerk
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:09am

    Kennedy, a man, had he lived, may never have seen a second term. Mr.Bay of Pigs had the womanizing morals of a pig, just like brother Ted and ole man Joe.

    Report Post »  
  • Calm Voice of Reason
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:07am

    “We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.

    At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral.”–Ronald Reagan, October 26, 1984

    Report Post » Calm Voice of Reason  
    • kfalcon22000
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:22am

      The First Amendment did not consider that the state would establish a religion. Your understanding is wrong. It prohibits Congress from making federal laws that show a bias toward one of the established religions, meaning one denomination before the other denominations. This only applied to federal law. That is why it is only addressed to Congress. It was either 8 or 9, I forget which, of the states that had state recognition of particular denominations, before, during, and after ratification of the First Amendment. It was never meant to apply to states, or schools, or individuals.

      Report Post »  
    • neverending
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:29am

      Agree with you wholeheartedly and President Reagan, as always, said it right.

      Report Post »  
    • Calm Voice of Reason
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:44am

      @KFalcon: Those churches established by the states were later found to be unconstitutional and separated from state endorsement. We have extended the ethos of the amendment to apply to publicly funded schools and institutions because that has been shown to be in accordance with the society the people of this country wish to have.

      Report Post » Calm Voice of Reason  
  • UBETHECHANGE
    Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:01am

    The “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

    Report Post »  
    • kfalcon22000
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:17am

      The words ‘separation’ and ‘church’ do not appear in the constitution. I disagree with Santorum‘s take on Kennedy’s speech. No one wants a church involved with the government, but rather people who bring who they are, which is based on their faith. Our commonality is the fact that our nation was based on biblical principles, without respecting a particular denominations tenets. Everyone but then was a Christian, and brought that into the government.

      Report Post »  
    • JJohnGalt2
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:46am

      Show us where in the US Constitution the word “God” appears.

      You Evangelicals are destroying the United States of America. Just like Obama and the Democrats are. Only with different methods.

      Report Post »  
    • TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:01pm

      Actually GALT… Ron Paul said this…

      “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.”

      He’s the Constitutional expert right? Lol.

      Report Post » TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12  
    • UBETHECHANGE
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:04pm

      God does not appear in the Constitution but does in the DOC:
      The Declaration of Independence

      In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

      The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

      When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

      And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of “Divine Providence”, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

      Divine Providence=God
      Law of Nature=God’s laws and our God given rights i.e. self preservation hence the 2nd amendment which our founding fathers enacted to protect our God given right for self-preservation.

      Report Post »  
    • JJohnGalt2
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:15pm

      The DOC certainly does not imply an Evangelical God. So, get over it. You Evangelicals are Wrong, just like Wrong-Wing Santorum.

      Report Post »  
    • UBETHECHANGE
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:19pm

      Were the Founding Fathers Christians?
      It can be easily demonstrated that a very high percentage – in fact, the overwhelming majority – of Founding Fathers were Christians, but certainly not all of them were. Today, citizens are regularly told about the lesser religious Founders (such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine), but hear nothing about the prominent Christians among the Founders (for example, 29 of the 56 signers of the Declaration held what are today considered seminary or Bible school degrees, and many others of the signers were bold and outspoken in their personal Christian faith). Significantly, not one of the Founding Fathers was secular in his orientation; even Thomas Paine (certainly the least religious of the Founders) openly acknowledged God and announced his belief in his personal accountability to God, and he also directly advocated teaching creationism in the public school classroom (see “Thomas Paine Criticizes the Current Public School Science Curriculum”). Over 250 individuals are historically considered Founding Fathers (e.g., the signers of the Declaration, the signers of the Constitution, the framers of the Bill of Rights, leading state governors and generals in the Revolution, etc.), but typically critics list only the handful of the least religious from among the 250 to claim that all the Founders were deists or secular.

      Report Post »  
    • Calm Voice of Reason
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 12:49pm

      @Ubethechange: I do not see how the personal religious beliefs of the founders should hold any significance to how our society conducts our governmental affairs. Clearly, we must do what we can to ensure that our elected officials are ethical and moral men and women, but we can no longer assume that such virtues are the exclusive purview of religion, Christianity in particular. Moral philosophy has advanced tremendously since the Founding Fathers, we can certainly claim to have a greater secular moral foundation than can be found in a literal interpretation the bible–when we choose which parts of it are applicable to our lives, are we not making our own moral decisions?

      With regards to Thomas Paine’s address, he is plainly wrong, though this is no fault of his–he is just a man of his time and cannot be expected to share our current understanding of the natural world.

      Report Post » Calm Voice of Reason  
    • UBETHECHANGE
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 1:04pm

      @CVOR “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.” ~George Washington

      A president governing a nation with christian morals and values and the bible for a guide and spiritual foundation is not the same as enacting or passing laws biased towards one particular religion . The 1st amendment “no law shall be passed…” applies to Congress fyi. Get a grip.

      Report Post »  
    • Calm Voice of Reason
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 1:19pm

      @Ubethechange: Is George Washington somehow unique in all of humanity in being infallible? And what, specifically, are those “Christian morals and values” that will govern us that are somehow exclusive to Christian teachings and not found anywhere else?

      Report Post » Calm Voice of Reason  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love