Rick Santorum seems like he would be right at home running a Parish...or a theocracy.

I dislike Rick Santorum for several reasons, but the biggest is how he forces me to side with Democrats. Santorum is so confused, that his ridiculous comments can’t go unchallenged.

In his latest rant to be unearthed, he criticizes John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech about religion to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. “Earlier in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up. You should read the speech,” said Santorum

In a recent interview with George Stephanopoulos, Santorum adds:

“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.”

He went on to note that the First Amendment “says the free exercise of religion — that means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square.”

“Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, ‘No, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate.’ Go on and read the speech. ‘I will have nothing to do with faith. I won’t consult with people of faith.’ It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960.”

Santorum needs to look at history. In 1960, there was a great deal of anti-Catholic sentiment, and some believed the Pope would attempt to influence Kennedy, if he were elected. That was the main impetus for the speech: Convincing the ignorant. Now, more than 50 years later, we have another Catholic running for president, but this one would rather rely on the Bible to Govern, rather than the Constitution.

If Rick Santorum is so smitten with the idea of a theocracy, he should move to Iran and run against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Rick Sanorum seems more like a preacher than a Presidential candidate.

I just read this disturbing quote from Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on the Drudge Report:

“Satan has his sights on the United States of America!” Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has declared.

“Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition.”

MORE

The former senator from Pennsylvania warned in 2008 how politics and government are falling to Satan.

“This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country – the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age?”

“He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions.”

Santorum made the provocative comments to students at Ave Maria University in Florida.

MORE

The White House contender described how Satan is even taking hold of some religions.

“We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

Sometimes, when I listen to Rick Santorum, I picture him sitting in the Oval Office with a Bible in front of him looking for information on how the country should be run. If you substitute the Bible for the Koran, isn’t that how some Middle East Theocracies are run?

Nicki Minaj arrives at the 2012 Grammy Awards with a man dressed as the Pope.

I’m an atheist, but the picture above irks me for a few reasons.

First, it’s an example of just how low pop music has gone. “Musicians” need to pull stunts like this to get attention from reporters, photographers, and interviewers, because their talent sure isn’t going to get them noticed. What’s the matter? Wouldn’t Lady Gaga let her use her cocoon or meat suit?

Second, notice how certain religions seem to be off limits to jokes and other criticism, yet Catholicism and Christianity in general seem to be great targets to poke fun at. Can we have some consistency?

Third, what’s the point? Is she working on an album of church hymns?

Louis Farrakhan calls Barack Obama a murderer, but defends Muammar Qaddafi.

If you read this blog regularly, then you know that I’m no fan of Barack Obama or his administration. Well, you can cross another person off the Barack Obama fan list: Minister loudmouth Louis Farrakhan. Of course, we have different reasons for our opinions.

Why isn’t Louis Farrakhan happy with Barack Obama’s job performance? Take a look:

“We voted for our brother Barack, a beautiful human being with a sweet heart, and now he’s an assassin. They turned him into them.”

Next, we have this little diatribe:

“You talk about a man killing his own people. When you lie to the American people saying that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. When you lie and then take innocent young men who come to serve their country, and send them to die in Iraq and Afghanistan, over lies, that’s a murderer in the White House.”

What I find amusing is that he criticizes Barack Obama for murdering his own people, then he sticks up for Muammar Qaddafi! You know, the guy who bombs his own people!

If you have time, check out the sermon below. I can’t believe a group of individuals can sit in a room with him and not laugh at his nonsense. I also can’t believe that I just defended Barack Obama.

Is Barack Obama a Christian? Should it matter?

Comedian Bill Maher doesn’t believe Barack Obama is a Christian, and I must say, I agree.

Unlike many, I don’t believe he is a closet Muslim. Instead, I see him as someone who isn’t religious and clings to Christianity because it’s politically expedient. If I’m correct about this, the fact that he isn’t really a Christian doesn’t bother me. What would bother me is an exaggeration of his beliefs to gain election.

Personally, I’m sick of politicians discussing God and talking about how important religion is in their lives. If it really is, then that’s great, but it is not relevant to holding public office. I look forward to the day when a candidate responds to a question about their personal religious views by saying it isn’t part of their life. Some might be appalled by that, and to them, I ask why?

Let me begin by stating that Muslims have every legal right to build a mosque at that location. As long as all local zoning laws are satisfied, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be built. Yet, while this building would seem to serve a function similar to that of a Jewish community center or a YMCA, only a fool can’t see the difference.

On September 11th, 2001, the United States was attacked. The nineteen terrorists were Muslims, they were members of Al Qaeda, which is an Islamic terrorist group, and if I remember correctly, there were several news reports of widespread celebrations in the MIddle East when news of the attack broke. I know the perpetrators were extremists, and I’m certainly no theologian, but it’s rather obvious that there is a propensity toward violence in Islam that is not found in Judaism or Christianity. To deny this is disingenuous.

Even if you only agree with part of my argument, you would probably point out that the Ground Zero Mosque will be run by Feisal Abdul Rauf, a moderate Imam. Of course, this isn’t true. Shortly after 9/11, he blamed the United States for being an “accessory” who brought on the 9/11 attacks. By the way, he also says the United States has more blood on its hands than Al Qaeda. Remember, this is someone referred to as a moderate Muslim.

I would prefer to see the mosque built somewhere else. If all legal requirements are met, then there is no reason why it shouldn’t be allowed to be built. Of course, mosque supporters shouldn’t be surprised when a majority of Americans oppose a mosque on this particular site. 3,000 Americans were killed by 19 Muslims, who were backed by an Islamic terrorist organization, then widely celebrated in the Middle East. If the mosque is built, we don’t need to like it, and we certainly don’t need to pretend we are fine with it.

Over the years, Nancy Pelosi has been a staunch supporter of abortion rights, gay marriage, and assisted suicide. I tend to disagree with her, but I do agree with her stances on those issues. With that said, I find it hard to believe that someone with these views could present themselves as a devout Catholic. The last time I checked, the Catholic Church was strongly opposed to abortion, assisted suicide, and gay marriage.

I’m trying to figure out if Nancy Pelosi’s inconsistency is due to her ignoring the differences between church doctrine and her voting record in an attempt to be everything to everyone, or is due to a lack of intellect. With Madame Speaker, either one is possible.

Have you been following the “South Park” situation? If you haven’t, here’s a quick summary: The creators portrayed the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit, which angered a Muslim group. On their website, the group posted pictures of Theo Van Gogh, who was murdered after one of his films offended some Muslims. The site hints that a similar fate may await “South Park” creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker.

“South Park” makes jokes about everyone, and they’re usually quite funny while they’re doing it. As a matter of fact, Jesus has a recurring role on the show! As far as I know, no one has threatened the creators over their portrayal of Jesus, and no Christian groups have threatened death.

Since 9/11, many have gone out of their way to describe Islam as a religion of peace. From observing the reaction to a cartoon, along with many other situations, it doesn’t seem very peaceful to me. It’s unfortunate that Comedy Central has decided to give in to threats by censoring the work of Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Their actions send all networks down a slippery slope where freedom of expression is hampered by bullies.

I’m strongly pro-choice, but I don’t want a dime of taxpayer money spent on abortions, except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. If one of these conditions doesn’t exist, then the abortion is an elective procedure used to remedy irresponsible behavior. What’s next, allowing people to get taxpayer funded liposuction because because they’re too lazy to exercise and eat right?

The bishops are right on this issue, but of course, they’re dead wrong on so much else. In the same letter, they criticize Congress for forcing legal immigrants to wait 5 years before they are eligible for Medicaid, and for supporting a bill that would prevent undocumented workers illegal aliens from purchasing insurance through an exchange. After all, the undocumented workers illegal aliens only trespassed into the country and spit on our laws on a daily basis. Why not give them a break?

If you’re a Catholic who agrees that illegal immigration is a major problem facing the United States, I ask that you withhold financial support for the church. Any hard-earned money you give to your local diocese will likely find its way into supporting those who are threatening our country’s economy.

Pope Benedict criticized Irish Bishops for doing wha the Vatican expected of them

Pope Benedict criticized Irish bishops for “grave errors in judgment,” which led to many children being abused by priests and nuns. Catholic Bishops in Ireland deserve the criticism, since they were complacent while priests and other members of the Church harmed young parishioners. Unfortunately, Pope Benedict glossed over the major cause: The Vatican.

The abuse allegations in Ireland are not confined to that country alone. Allegations came to light in the United States several years ago, along with Germany and many other European nations. It’s also likely that the number of allegations will increase as victims gain the courage to face the Catholic Church and their abusers.

Were the Irish Bishops also responsible for abuse allegations in other countries and continents? Of course not. Each diocese was working on orders from the Vatican, which some feel encouraged a veil of secrecy. If blame is to be assigned, a good portion of it needs to be directed at Pope Benedict himself:

While a cardinal at the Vatican, Joseph Ratzinger penned a letter instructing bishops around the world to report all cases of abuse to his office and keep them secret under threat of excommunication. Irish bishops have said the letter was widely understood to mean they shouldn’t report the cases to police.

In addition to telling bishops to keep quiet or else, Joseph Ratzonger aka Pope Benedict also contributed to the abuse of children:

…reports emerged last week that while he was archbishop of Munich in the 1980s, Ratzinger approved therapy for a priest suspected of molesting boys. The priest was then transferred to a job where he later abused more children. He was convicted in a criminal trial.

So to summarize, we have a Pope who encouraged bishops to hide allegations of abuse or face excommunication, along with personal failures that contributed to the abuse of more children after an abusive priest was transferred. His hypocritical behavior and failure to take responsibility are a disgrace to Catholicism.