Constitutional Law, Religion, Society

Santorum Feels Like Throwing Up . . . Again

Former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) has been criticized in the past for his statement that he “almost threw up” when he read John F. Kennedy’s famous 1960 comments about the role of religion in public life and the separation of church and state. This weekend he took time out to say that he would still like to throw up.


Santorum is notorious among civil libertarians for his deep-seated opposition to separation principles. It is a view that is becoming all the more common — as this column discusses.

If you recall, Kennedy used the speech to address anti-Catholic prejudice and doubts raised over his ability to be independent of Rome. Kennedy famously said “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.” For most Americans, it was a statement that made them feel proud. For Santorum, it may him feel woozy.

Last year at the College of Saint Mary Magdalen in Warner, N.H., Santorum told the crowd of JFK’s 1960 Greater Houston Ministerial Association speech, “Earlier in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up. You should read the speech.”

Santorum this weekend left no doubt about his rejection of separation principles: “I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. 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.”
He later answered that his statement was quite literal in wanting to throw up: “To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up.”

It is the ultimate expression of faith-based politics. Ironically, it is the type of intermingling of faith and government that many of our most implacable enemies might find appealing. Around the world, nations are reeling from the influence of religion on politics. Yet, in this island of stability of separation of church and state, Santorum appears to want to tear down the wall that has long defined our political system.

With the latest comments, we all may feel a bit woozy.

Source: Washington Post

95 thoughts on “Santorum Feels Like Throwing Up . . . Again”

  2. So is the idea that the first Catholic president was sickening a big seller among Catholics these days? Who knew?

    I don’t think Ricky understands his history very well. Evidently, he was unaware that in 1960, conservatives thought of Catholics the same way think of Muslims today. He seems under the impression that America was a wonderful religiously tolerant nation until the horrible secularists came along and ruined everything.

    I guess he didn’t know about this, perpetuated, by the way, not by the secularists who didn’t give a damn, but by his favorite allies, the right wing protestants: From digby

  3. No rhyming is not a sickness sign in this case.
    It’s just regressing to the child learning to talk, formulate, communicate.stage.
    The challenges here have helped waken that part of the brain.
    The brain is both formative and can be reactivated in dormant segments.
    G’night.

  4. Mike S and SwM,
    How about let’s analyze these types. What made them that way.
    Like most exogenetic faults it was not a normal childhood there.
    Have never considered them from that viewpoint. I mean it can’t be an adult acquired strategy of behavior. And the choice of calling it evil is medieval.
    (Rhyme again—sickness symptom?)
    You’re the pro here Mike S. And SwM and I are all ears, if I may speak for you SwM.

    PS Why isn’t there a woodshed here to take such hijacking issues to????
    I’m signing off to go to bed. Got to see my shrink tomorrow.
    Don”t expect other than ????? from him. This assertiveness other than panic grip on my selfimages is a new phenomena. Whoopee. Sumpn new!.

  6. id707 & SwM,

    We’re all fine.

    Tragedy for a friend of mine in Chardon … we thought so but her granddaughter is fine and now at home. Well, not fine, but not injured.

    This Stratfor stuff Jill brought forward is really interesting. You have to check it out.

  8. idealist707, I have been there for months and believe me I was not the first. Blouise and gbk stood up for me and i was fine. You will be too.

  9. SwM
    In Sweden most all salesmen are lean and hard, not chubby and sweaty.
    Obviuosly different standards in America.
    He’ll feel anguish for several days, unless AY licks him behind the ear a while.
    Just allowing some of my childhood defense tactics to come out again.

    Bullies do that in me.

    Hi, Mike S., You see, my true confession inspired by yours is in this case demonstrably true. Wonder when AY will get it?

  10. SwM,
    Thanks. You’ve been there, you said. I think I can out talk him, at least on my subjects, and i’m egoist but know that law is not one of them.
    Thanks again. When the going gets tough, that’s when you need tough friends. I said that.

  11. AY,
    You violated your word and false flag attacked me under ID7 id.
    ‘Fess up. You’re sick. But realizing that is seldom encountered.
    I know some of my faults better, thanks to you. Really.

    And using cryptic references and “I’m chief of the coterie” antics are sad to see in someone adjudged adult. And a lawyer to boot. But then we have “islamiic sharia judges” don’t we. So why should you be perfect.

    Let’s pretend to kiss and make up……until you attack me from another pseudonym. I never thought of how easy it must be to do. Never entered my mind in spite of your previous intimations as to my “previous handles”.
    But when the agent provocateur, agent id7 appeared, it all was clear.
    Thanks again for teaching me more about dirty fighting.

    Go see my NYTimes post on “Georgia thread. It’ll make you eat your heart out. You may know law. but I’m either inspired or a nut. I can guess your choice. But malicious, nope. That’s your turf.

  12. There’s something else to think about: “Technorati reports:

    Wikileaks has begun publishing 5 million e-mails from Stratfor, the Global Intelligence Company described by Barons as the Shadow CIA.

    At 00:01 GMT on 27 February 2011, Wikileaks started publishing the confidential e-mail communications between Stratfor and its informants which includes government employees, government agencies and corporations.

    In a press release, the inner workings of Stratfor are described, painting a world where the government, corporations and Stratfor are intertwined.

    Anti-Sec, part of Anonymous, proclaimed late in December 2011 that they had hacked into Stratfor and had managed to gain access to subscriber data. In a press release, Anti-Sec stated that the main reason they hacked into Stratfor was not for the subscriber data, but the trove of 5 million e-mail data, which would reveal the inner working of Stratfor and government agencies. It seems that it is these e-mails that are now being leaked by Wikileaks.”

  13. Strip all the propaganda from your mind and look: “Sometimes finance executives let slip the way they really feel: that they hold the world in the palm of their hands.

    It’s not often that the people in charge admit what is really going on: a global game for political dominance. I just saw an interview with Wall Street superlawyer Rodgin (“Rodge”) Cohen of Sullivan & Cromwell, the secret force behind (among other things) the expanded emergency lending power of the Federal Reserve through section 13(3). You know, that’s the law
    allowing the Fed to lend unlimited sums based on whatever it wants to lend, a section amended in 1991 at Cohen’s behest. He was involved in “more than 17 deals” during the crisis in 2008, including the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the $85 billion AIG bailout deal, and the takeover of Fannie Mae by the federal government. He is, as Bill Black said, the fixer of Wall Street. Here’s his quote, at minute 3:39 of this Bloomberg interview:

    Hopefully we will not see the major financial institutions in this country disappear because if we do we will also see a loss of ability to influence events not only financially but also politically throughout the world.

    That’s pretty clear. It reminds me of this quote from an anonymous military officer while he was touring JP Morgan’s trading floor (emphasis added):

    JPMorgan Chase yesterday hosted about 30 active duty military officers (across all branches and agencies) from the Marine Corps War College in Quantico, Va. The officers met with senior executives, toured the trading floor and participated in a trading simulation. They discussed recruitment, operations management, strategic communications and the economy. Aside from employees thanking them for their service as they passed by, they also received a standing ovation on the trading floor. Said one officer after a senior JPM exec thanked him for his service: “We promise to keep you safe if you keep this country strong.”

    There are always conspiracy theories out there about a global linkage between large financial institutions and American empire. They don’t, however, usually come from the people running the place.”

    naked capitalism, Matt Stoller’s article of today

  14. idealist707, He doesn’t attack guest bloggers….got to people please up ya know. You know the type. They are good at sales.

  15. Raff,

    Roflmao……. I think someone is trying to pull a Rodman on you……

  16. raff,
    did my offer offfend you. ‘fess up now. or you’re not ready to pal with me.?
    don’t think AY will attack you for that. but you never know.

    ever tried to cut the umbilical?

  18. Santorum is either disingenuous, stupid or both. Trying to shape the discussion to accuse 1st amendment advocates of prohibiting a person of religious belief from serving; trying to equate exclusion of religious teaching and doctrine with amoral and unethical government. Mostly trying to stir up emotional reaction based on pitting religion against secular society.

    His thinking is divisive and cloudy, and he could not be challenged in a reasoned debate and remain coherent; unless he went full blown theocracy, which depends on a meaningless use of the term religious if he were not to offend all those excluded.

Comments are closed.