Pity the poor gay hating bigot, people pick on him!

In what way do you disagree with it? And is a Presidential candidate who associates great American speeches with bodily functions any better?

I didn't say anything about pitying anybody, Putin, just about what people's level of dialogue says about themselves.

How do you have 'dialogue' with that mental amoeba? And what of Santorum's efforts at 'dialogue', guess he gets a pass.

I disagree with the idea of an absolute separation of church and state, SC, and with the idea that religious people's political views should not influence their political participation. I agree, on the other hand, with the idea that no politician should use his power to violate free exercise or establish a state religion. (Needless to say, the two foregoing statements and elementary logic will also reveal that I do not believe these First-amendment principles entail an absolute separation of church and state).

"How do you have 'dialogue' with that mental amoeba? And what of Santorum's efforts at 'dialogue', guess he gets a pass."

Brilliant rhetoric as always, putin, but nowhere hidden in these lyrical words is any support for the proposition that slinging potty-mouth venom at a candidate helps or contribute anything to the American political sphere. Among the numerous reasons for this would be -- it doesn't.

To answer your "points" more directly: if you can't dialogue with somebody, then just don't dialogue with him. And if Santorum has been irrational or absurd, then yes, I would criticize him as well. As it happens, I quite strongly dislike the man, and would am appalled that he is attracting the following that he is.

"I disagree with the idea of an absolute separation of church and state"

Shocker.

I think you are misunderstanding Kennedy's message. When he says he is for an absolute separation he means this.

"
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."

Do you disagree with this?

semck is right that separation of church and state is a bad idea. Look how well it's working out for Iran. We can be just like them someday! Before you get all mad at my exaggeration, ask yourself this: wouldn't people like Santorum absolutely love to rewrite our nation's laws based on the bible?

But yet you hurl you sanctimonious indignation at Santorum's gay critics who are sick of being equated to those who engage in bestiality and pedophilia, figures.

"but nowhere hidden in these lyrical words is any support for the proposition that slinging potty-mouth venom at a candidate helps or contribute anything to the American political sphere. "

Have you been paying attention to the rubbish your party has been spewing and is still spewing since 2008?

@SC,

A partially fair point, but he did not speak the words in a vacuum. Already "separation of church and state" meant something more than just the exposition that here followed, so I think he has to be interpreted as endorsing all that that entailed.

Anyway, no, I think it makes perfect sense, in a given context, for a religious leader to tell his flock "how to vote." It simply doesn't make sense to regard this (voting) as the one action in life that has no moral or religious significance.

I do agree that no church should be granted political funds; I think the same about schools except in a voucher scenario where it is the parents directing the money. And as for no man being denied office -- sure, I don't think anybody should be denied office "merely because his religion differs." On the other hand, it's certainly something I'm going to take into account. I probably won't be voting for a scientologist any time soon. (And sure, maybe I could be convinced otherwise, but given what I think at the moment, I would view that as reckless behavior).

@YJ: some laws, sure. And so would I. All of them? I highly doubt it. He is not a theonomist, at least so far as I know.

"Have you been paying attention to the rubbish your party has been spewing and is still spewing since 2008?"

*long sigh* I'm going to say this one more time, putin. I know you won't understand, because there's no reason this time should be any different than any other. But here's the thing. Unlike you, I DON'T MINDLESSLY ENDORSE EVERYTHING MY PARTY SAYS OR DOES.

When conservatives engage in this behavior I'm complaining about, I gripe at them. I have no problem criticizing my party, because I never signed an oath for it to represent me in every possible way. A corollary to that is that you can't just criticize me for every little thing somebody in my party says or does as if I did it myself.

I know well from experience that this point is utterly mysterious to you, but I felt impelled to make it again.

"Anyway, no, I think it makes perfect sense, in a given context, for a religious leader to tell his flock "how to vote.""

I love this hypocrisy. Churches get to ignore basic labor laws for their non-affiliated employees, but churches get to interfere in the political process while maintaining their bogus tax exemption status.

Churches are the biggest welfare moochers of them all. Nothing but corporations with a cross on them.

Anyways, Semck... Savage's co-opting of the word Santorum was a political masterstroke. It's the first identifiable moment (that I'm personally aware of) where a gay man showed that he has the ability to seriously impact the popularity of a bigoted politician. Gay rights are becoming a huge issue, and this was just one flex of a muscle that is only going to grow more powerful as time passes.

Gays are finally able to say, "You can't just trample us, anymore."

Semck: I challenge you to name one law that Santorum would NOT change to directly reflect the Bible's directives.

You are right he didn't say it in a vacuum, he said it in response to people who said he was going to take orders from the Pope. He is saying a separation of church and state to convince protestants that he wasn't going to make the country a catholic theocracy.

"I know well from experience that this point is utterly mysterious to you, but I felt impelled to make it again."

Everything? You can't as though toilet rhetoric hasn't completely overtaken your entire movement, it's just a few fringe elements. Horrific rhetoric is the Republican Party's modus operandi, and all you can muster is some whining about Dan Savage for fighting fire with fire.

Putin: If a preacher wants to tell his congregation how to vote, fine. If the congregation buys it, that's their business. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm not a person of faith, but I take opinions of those I respect into account when I cast my votes. I can only assume that one's holy leader is to them a figure worthy of respect and consideration. Not the one you or I would choose, but it isn't our decision.

@putin, obviously we disagree, then. There is nothing substantive about what Savage said. Much of the Republican rhetoric you refer to has been attempting to make substantive points, however horrifying you may find it.

@YJ, I would be most surprised if he would favor any kind of ban, on a federal or state level, of criminalizing or otherwise forbidding sex before marriage.

Putin: "Nothing but corporations with a cross on them."

Jeez man, even I wouldn't go that far :P

Separation of church and state goes both ways, you know. It sounds like you are pushing an entirely secular agenda (correct me if wrong). While I don't believe that RESULT would be bad in practice, I 100% believe that the sheep need to come to this conclusion on their own, not be forced.

Why are all of you assholes too stupid to realize that Santorum's policies are a hell of a lot better than Socialist Obama?

@semck: I'd believe he would never make that part of his agenda within our current system. He is smart enough to realize it could never gain support. I do NOT, however, believe he wouldn't make that into law if he could "wave his hands" and it were so. He absolutely would.

That's irrelevant, admittedly. Still, he's dangerous as hell.

@YJ, First, I missed your post on Savage, sorry. I'm sorry, but I think only people in liberal cloisters would ever view it as a "political masterstroke." He didn't impact Santorum's popularity -- he just gave liberals another joke to pass around among themselves and feel superior, and reinforced the stereotype on the right that homosexuals are vulgar and potty-minded. I don't view either as a positive thing in the least. Certainly calling it a masterstroke suggests you badly need a conservative friend.

On your second post, I'm obviously not going to argue fanciful counterfactuals. You believe he would change that law if he could, I believe he wouldn't, and of course there's no way to prove it one way or the other. At least we agree that he wouldn't in fact, and wouldn't even speak support for such, so I consider the challenge met. (Obviously I can't meet the challenge at the deeper level if you're going to just define him to "really, deep down" want to change things that he's never said he wanted to change).

"Much of the Republican rhetoric you refer to has been attempting to make substantive points"

Uh...right. There's nothing worse than a hack who pretends he's not a hack.

Obama is a socialist, gay, Muslim, Kenyan, terrorist, Hitler. That's "substantive" I guess, among koolaid drinking theocrat wannabes.

"He didn't impact Santorum's popularity"

No, his being the most corrupt Senator in 2006 did that for him. Gay people are sick of being called names, you think retaliating gives gay haters an excuse to hate? As if they needed an excuse when they have the bible sanctioning their venom.

" It sounds like you are pushing an entirely secular agenda (correct me if wrong)."

These bigots make billions peddling fear & hate while insisting that they should be exempt from being held to the same rules as other companies who hire untold numbers of workers. It's a fact that churches use their tithings as capital, and make bank on their investments. How this is any different than any other corporation is beyond me, other than their being Jesus approved.

http://www.mint.com/blog/investing/how-churches-invest-05172010/

How do "churches" get away with their privileged position? By pretending they engage in "charity" work, which is nothing but advertising for their church. Since they can't be audited, even their fake charity work isn't really investigated.

"reinforced the stereotype on the right that homosexuals are vulgar and potty-minded" Potty-minded? Wow, I'm sure that whole santorum thing really did impact the stereotype that gays are potty-minded among right wing preschoolers.

Aside from making fun of your word choice I have another point to make. I find it interesting that you're sitting here saying "he's potty mouthed!" Where's the upsetness over the fact that Santorum classified all gays as child molesters and animal rapists? Why is saying "gays and lesbians have sex with children" acceptable for public discourse, and talking about the "unpleasant mixture of fecal matter and lube that is sometimes the result of anal sex" not?

"I don't feel that a President should be compelled to discuss their religion and that religion should disqualify anyone from office or society."

I understand that I did not check my work again and that this is confusing. That being said did anyone else read this as equivalent to "Religion should disqualify people from office." Krellin did and launched into another tyrade via private message.