It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul: Santorum should emphasize liberty, not religion TELL ME WHY: Back it UP

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by UFO1414
My personal stance: I believe in God but I do not believe in religion.

www.cbsnews.com...


Ron Paul suggested Monday that personal religion is too large a part of Rick Santorum's presidential campaign message, and said his own message appeals to people of all faiths. Asked by a voter during a town hall with voters at the Bonner County Fairgrounds exhibition hall here why an evangelical Christian would vote for Paul, the Texas congressman told the 1,000-person crowd: "The same reason everybody else should vote for liberty."


I ask us ATS members why Rick Santorum has such a big following? Is it strictly his his religious beliefs? If so, there will be no change in his supporters. Once you've drank the "Kool-Aid", you will go back for more.

Why do some of us condemn Islam, (well most on this site), and their followers? Is it not the same? Once said "Kool-Aid" is drank, is there no hope?

Please tell me the reasons Ron Paul is not the best candidate to be POTUS for the next 4 years. Give common sense a chance!

There IS a bigger power out there that most of us feel, if not lucky to experience. But it is not within the bindings of a book.


edit on 5-3-2012 by UFO1414 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-3-2012 by UFO1414 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-3-2012 by UFO1414 because: (no reason given)


"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. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state."
www.lewrockwell.com...

The War on Religion

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

The role of government is not to be defined by a religion. The morality in which the practice of religion is to be along side governance, but not a defining characteristic of the actions and functions of the government. The function of government is to coincide with allowing freedom of religion, not a religion controlling through governance the freedoms of the people...

does this make sense?




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Religion isn't based on rationality and logic...and since it's Santorum's biggest driver, it should be abundantly clear why voting for him is a JOKE!



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   
first, let me say....
I would rather see paul get the office than any of the other fruitcakes, and santorum is my least favorite of them all!!!

but, well, I had to think awhile for an answer....
and here it it....

the gov't has played major roll in screwing everything up!!!
why it is so inconceivable for many to think that the gov't is gonna have to at least play of role in correcting the mess?? I mean, if you suddenly just stop the gov't from doing all those things that they've been doing and let everything "correct itself", you will have basically stopped the flow of a major portion of money that is flowing through the system, you might have corrected what you had seen as a problem to begin with, but you will have created alot of other problems, some of them much bigger than the ones you corrected.
they gov't played a major roll in this by throwing money around willy nilly, by over regulating some, while under regulating others. well, that same gov't could start acting a little more sensibly and instead of throwing the money at their select buddies and using it to buy votes, well, use it in a way that would correct some of the problems...so instead of having a crash and burn and then waiting for the market to "correct itself" which could possibly lead to alot of loss of life!! well, we could have a controlled crash and have corrected alot of it ourselves and not have to wait so long!

a hand's off approach will lead to crash and burn!

but at this moment, crash and burn sounds far better than more wars, more and bigger bonuses for the big fishies in the sea, more money being wasted on bridges to nowhere and airports no one wants!!



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by UFO1414
 


I think the problem is dyed-in-the-wool beliefs. Consider the topics we are taught to not speak of at the dinner table; Religion, politics and sex. Religion and political beliefs become a point of pride for a lot of people who, after a time, are not willing to change their belief system, regardless of the information given to them about either.

Consider a few examples;
Jesus was not born on the winter solstice, nor did he die on the spring equinox. That was changed by the catholic church to convert pagans.
The governments, both state and federal, circumnavigate the constitution on a daily basis by passing laws limiting the bill of rights INSTEAD of having a constitutional convention or at least a vote by congress (2/3rds senate, 3/4ths house or reps) as delineated BY the constitution.

One can argue for YEARS about these 2 things and never change the mind of fundies or card carrying members of either political party.



new topics

top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join