Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Santorum Wants To Impose 'Judeo-Christian Sharia'
Source:
CNN
URL Source: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/opini ... m-sharia/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9
Published: Jan 7, 2012
Author: Dean Obeidallah
Post Date: 2012-01-07 14:28:15 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 14405
Comments: 36
(CNN) -- There are two Rick Santorums: The first one I might not agree with, but the second one truly scares me. "Santorum One" pushes for less government regulation for corporations and shrinking the federal government. You may or may not agree with these positions, but they are both mainstream conservative fare. Then there's "Santorum Two." This Santorum wants to impose conservative Christian law upon America. Am I being hyperbolic or overly dramatic with this statement? I wish I were, but I'm not. Dean Obeidallah Dean Obeidallah Plainly put, Rick Santorum wants to convert our current legal system into one that requires our laws to be in agreement with religious law, not unlike what the Taliban want to do in Afghanistan. Santorum is not hiding this. The only reason you may not be aware of it is because up until his recent surge in the polls, the media were ignoring him. However, "Santorum Two" was out there telling anyone who would listen. He told a crowd at a November campaign stop in Iowa in no uncertain terms, "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law." On Thanksgiving Day at an Iowa candidates' forum, he reiterated: "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law." "Imagine if either of the two Muslim members of Congress declared their support for a proposed American law based on verses from the Quran. The outcry would be deafening, especially from people like Santorum." Dean Obeidallah Yes, that means exactly what you think it does: Santorum believes that each and every one of our government's laws must match God's law, warning that "as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation." I'm not exactly sure what "agitation" means in this context, but I think it's a code word for something much worse than acid reflux. And as an aside, when Santorum says "God," he means "not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." So, if your god differs from Rick's, your god's views will be ignored, just like the father is on "Keeping Up with the Kardashians." Some of you might be asking: How far will "Santorum Two" take this? It's not like he's going to base public policy decisions on Bible passages, right? Well, here's what Santorum had to say just last week when asked about his opposition to gay marriage: "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change." Santorum could not be more unambiguous: His policy decisions will be based on "biblical truths," and as he noted, these "truths" will not change regardless of whether public opinion has evolved since the time the Bible was written thousands of years ago. Imagine if either of the two Muslim members of Congress declared their support for a proposed American law based on verses from the Quran. The outcry would be deafening, especially from people like Santorum. One of the great ironies is that Santorum has been a leader in sounding alarm bells that Muslims want to impose Islamic law -- called Sharia law -- upon non-Muslims in America. While Santorum fails to offer even a scintilla of credible evidence to support this claim, he continually warns about the "creeping" influence of Muslim law. Santorum's fundamental problem with Sharia law is that it's "not just a religious code. It is also a governmental code. It happens to be both religious in nature and origin, but it is a civil code." Consequently, under the Sharia system, the civil laws of the land must comport with God's law. Now, where did I hear about someone wanting to impose only laws that agree with God's law in America? So, what type of nation might the United States be under Rick Santorum's Sharia law? 1. Rape victims would be forced to give birth to the rapist's child. Santorum has stated that his religious beliefs dictate that life begins at conception, and as a result, rape victims would be sentenced to carrying the child of the rapist for nine months. 2. Gay marriages would be annulled. Santorum recently declared that not only does he oppose gay marriages, but he supports a federal constitutional amendment that would ban them, invalidating all previous gay marriages that have legally been sanctioned by states and thus callously destroying marriages and thrusting families into chaos. 3. Santorum would ban all federal funding for birth control and would not oppose any state that wanted to pass laws making birth control illegal. 4. No porn! I'm not kidding. Santorum signed "The Marriage Vow" pledge (PDF) authored by the Family Leader organization, under which he swears to oppose pornography. I think many would agree that alone should disqualify him from being president. To me, "Santorum Two" truly poses an existential threat to the separation of church and state, one of the bedrock principles of our nation since its inception. Not only did Thomas Jefferson speak of the need to create "a wall of separation between church and state," so did Santorum's idol, Ronald Reagan, who succinctly stated, "church and state are, and must remain, separate." While there may be millions of Americans who in their heart agree with the views of "Santorum Two," it is my hope they will reject any attempts to move America closer to a becoming the Afghanistan of the Western Hemisphere.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
Santorum One certainly does NOT push for shrinking the federal government. He voted for the first new entitlement since LBJ (Medicare Part D), the largest federal intrusion into the classroom in history (the failed No Child Left Behind), the largest pork barrel infrastructure bill in history (including the infamous "bridge to nowhere"), thousands of earmarks, Bush's two ill-conceived wars in the Middle East, and much more. Rick Santorum is the poster boy for everything that was wrong with the GOP during the Bush administration.
Of course Santorum is right. You remember this phrase? We hold these truths to be self evident..... Apparently some Americans don't know the history of this great nation.
Only a dumb ass would compare the evil toilet paper called the Quran to the Holy Bible. Here is a hint. The Koran is evil and the Bible is good. I like the K spelling of Koran better.
There is no such thing as "gay marriage". Only in the figment of perverts imagination does it exist.
If that is true, then you just made the Bible evil. Why you ask? Because large parts of the Qur'an are built upon the Jewish Talmud which is the basis of the Christian Holy Bible. Islam is inextricably linked to both Judaism and Christianity.
The devil based part of the Koran on some characters and events in the Bible. He did that to fool and deceive. The Koran is evil and the Bible is good.
Which Bible is "good"?
I would say I trust these ones Bishops, Geneva, and King James. I don't trust the NIV, or the New King James version. I don't know enough about some of the others.
I see. What creates this idea that some Bibles are "good" while others are not?
I think that the Bibles I mention conform to the text of the original languages. That is my opinion. If it is not yours that is ok. I see differences in the other versions when I compare them. I'm not an expert and I don't possess all knowledge. That is the way I see it.
What about the popular "Gideon Bible" that everyone hears about located in a drawer in hotel/motel rooms almost everywhere?
They put out King James Bibles as far as I remember.
So, do you think the GREAT EVIL has crept into hotel/motel rooms?
Bishops, Geneva, and King James. I don't trust the NIV, or the New King James version. Of course and you know that the Catholic Church doesn't use your versions of the Bible whether you like it or not. They have traditionally relied on the Vulgate. Yet, the Catholic church is Christian and has the largest block of Christian believers than any of the 10,000 various Protestant churches with their variations of the "Bible." What do you think about the Vulgate? Is it evil or good?
I think the are doing a good job. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideons_International The Gideons principally use the King James Version for their Bibles.[5] The Gideons also distribute New King James Bibles and Testaments, which they refer to as "Modern English Version" (MEV) Bibles and Testaments. According to the Gideon Guidebook, these MEV Scriptures are used as a supplement to the KJV Bibles. Typically, MEV Bibles are allowed to be distributed only when either the Bible purchaser, Hotel, or the recipient specifies a desire for a modern Bible.
Didn't you say (correct me on my memory): Doesn't your most recent post make you a hypocrite?
What do you think about the Vulgate? Is it evil or good? Thanks for the information. I never knew they called it the Vulgate. Here are the Catholic Ten Commandments: 1. I, the Lord, am your God. You shall not have other gods besides me. 2. You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain 3. Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day 4. Honor your father and your mother 5. You shall not kill 6. You shall not commit adultery 7. You shall not steal 8. You shall not bear false witness 9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife 10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods Here is the translation from www.observethetencommandm...10-commandments-greek.php which is a translation from the greek. Commandment 2 Thou shalt not make to thyself an idol, nor likeness of anything, whatever things are in the heaven above, and whatever are in the earth beneath, and whatever are in the waters under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them; for I am the Lord thy God, a jealous God, recompensing the sins of the fathers upon the children, to the third and fourth generation to them that hate me, 6 and bestowing mercy on them that love me to thousands of them, and on them that keep my commandments. Why is the second commandment missing from the Catholic version? Also note that they split the 10th commandment into two separate ones. I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me. 8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: 9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, 10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. 11 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. 13 Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: 14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. 15 And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. 16 Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 17 Thou shalt not kill. 18 Neither shalt thou commit adultery. 19 Neither shalt thou steal. 20 Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour. 21 Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.
I don't trust the NIV, or the New King James version. Doesn't your most recent post make you a hypocrite? How is that? Because apparently at the request of a hotel owner they will use a "modern version" instead of the King James version? Their default is still to give out King James versions. So I will cut them some slack.
I asked: And you didn't answer the question posed; instead you proceeded to quote the Ten Commandments (from an interpretive Bible. Of course, you know that Islam believes in the ten Commandments, correct?
If you don't trust the KJV, then you look suspiciously at the document as though it is "evil" .... or are you sliding your way back into reality, now?
I had to edit my post. I messed up. Go read it again now it is more complete.
I said I trust the King James version. That is what the Gideons put out unless requested otherwise by hotel owner.
SO, you have established that the Catholic Vulgate and the Qur'an are both "evil." How do you determine, "good"?
How do you determine, "good"? They took out one of Gods commanements. The second one. If someone takes part of Gods word out and throws it away. That is a clue that they are evil dumb, ignorant or evil. A second clue would be calling the pope "holy father".
Since you are correcting yourself, why not clarify this post: Are you really a hypocrite?
Read a little more carefully. I said I trust the "king james" version not the "new king James" version. There is a big difference.
It sounds like you have a problem with all these versions. Who authored the version you like or is your favorite?
The Bible contains two 10 Commandments: Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 10:4. Neither have exactly 10. There have been 3 successful attempts at grouping them into 10: 1.) During the 1st century after Christ, the Philonic version was created. 2.) During the 3rd century after Christ the Talmudic version was created. 3.) During the 5th century after Christ, the Augustinian version was created. Today... 1.) Catholics and Lutherans use the Augustine version, but Catholics use the Deuteronomy language while Lutherans use the Exodus language. 2.) The Eastern Orthodox and most Protestants (other than the original Protestants -- the Lutherans) use the Philonic version with the Exodus language. All of these of versions are true to the Bible.
The Bible contains two 10 Commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy. Neither have exactly 10. There have been 3 successful attempts at grouping them into 10: 1.) During the 1st century after Christ, the Philonic version was created. 2.) During the 3rd century after Christ the Talmudic version was created. 3.) During the 5th century after Christ, the Augustinian version was created. Today... 1.) Catholics and Lutherans use the Augustine version, but Catholics use the Deuteronomy language while Lutherans use the Exodus language. 2.) The Eastern Orthodox and most Protestants (other than the original Protestants -- the Lutherans) use the Philonic version with the Exodus language. All of these of versions are true to the Bible.
I think they are grouped just fine. The Catholics leave out the second commandment regardless.
Which of the three groupings do you find fine? The Philonic grouping, the Talmudic grouping, or the Augustinian grouping? They are not the same. Which language do you support? Exodus or Deuteronomy? They are not the same.
They are not the same. Which grouping do you support? The King James grouping. Which I suspect is the Same as the Bishops Bible, which I suspect is the same as the Geneva Bible. Which is different then the Catholic version which leaves out the second commandment. They leave it out because it describes them.
Years ago, I sat on a long plane ride right next to a non-denominational fundamentalist preacher. We had a great conversation. He told me that that problem with his church, like all non-denominational protestant churches is that they don't have any context -- no history from which to grain moral strength. This preacher was very interested in the traditions and history that the Orthodox Church represents -- going back all the way to the time of the Apostles. I know which version of the 10 Commandments I follow and why. Do you???
The ones in the King James Bible are correct. Take a greek to english translation and they are the same. It doesn't matter how they are grouped. Just so long as they are all there. The catholics took out the second commandment. Why did they do that?
Sorry my friend, but you are not really getting this. We're not talking about language translation. This is not King James version New American Standard, versus something else. Read the Exodus commandments versus the Deuteronomy commandments in any Bible you choose. They are not the same. There are not 10 of them. There are three attempts to create 10. All of the attempts happened a long time before there were any Orthodox, Catholics, or Protestants. By the way, the Jews believe that there are 613 commandments. I am a Christian who understands the history and traditions of the church. Like my preacher friend on the plane, there are too many American Christians who really don't understand Christian history and why that history is important to our beliefs.
"Santorum One" pushes for less government regulation for corporations and shrinking the federal government.
#2. To: Brian S (#0)
He told a crowd at a November campaign stop in Iowa in no uncertain terms, "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law."
#3. To: Brian S (#0)
Imagine if either of the two Muslim members of Congress declared their support for a proposed American law based on verses from the Quran.
#4. To: Brian S (#0)
. Gay marriages would be annulled.
#5. To: A K A Stone (#3)
The Koran is evil and the Bible is good.
#6. To: buckeroo (#5)
If that is true, then you just made the Bible evil. Why you ask? Because large parts of the Qur'an are built upon the Jewish Talmud which is the basis of the Christian Holy Bible. Islam is inextricably linked to both Judaism and Christianity.
#7. To: A K A Stone (#6)
The Koran is evil and the Bible is good.
#8. To: buckeroo (#7)
Which Bible is "good"?
#9. To: A K A Stone (#8)
#10. To: buckeroo (#9)
I see. What creates this idea that some Bibles are "good" while others are not?
#11. To: A K A Stone (#10)
#12. To: buckeroo (#11)
What about the popular "Gideon Bible" that everyone hears about located in a drawer in hotel/motel rooms almost everywhere?
#13. To: A K A Stone (#12)
#14. To: A K A Stone (#8)
I would say I trust these ones
#15. To: buckeroo (#13)
So, do you think the GREAT EVIL has crept into hotel/motel rooms?
#16. To: A K A Stone (#15)
I don't trust the NIV, or the New King James version.
#17. To: buckeroo (#14)
(Edited)
Of course and you know that the Catholic Church doesn't use your versions of the Bible whether you like it or not. They have traditionally relied on the Vulgate. Yet, the Catholic church is Christian and has the largest block of Christian believers than any of the 10,000 various Protestant churches with their variations of the "Bible."
#18. To: buckeroo (#16)
Didn't you say (correct me on my memory):
#19. To: A K A Stone (#17)
What do you think about the Vulgate? Is it evil or good?
#20. To: A K A Stone (#18)
#21. To: buckeroo (#19)
#22. To: buckeroo (#20)
If you don't trust the KJV, then you look suspiciously at the document as though it is "evil" .... or are you sliding your way back into reality, now?
#23. To: A K A Stone (#21)
#24. To: buckeroo (#23)
SO, you have established that the Catholic Vulgate and the Qur'an are both "evil."
#25. To: A K A Stone (#22)
I said I trust the King James version.
#8. To: buckeroo (#7)
Which Bible is "good"?
I would say I trust these ones
Bishops, Geneva, and King James.
I don't trust the NIV, or the New King James version.
I don't know enough about some of the others.
A K A Stone posted on 2012-01-07 17:03:22 ET
#26. To: buckeroo (#25)
Are you really a hypocrite?
#27. To: A K A Stone (#26)
#28. To: Brian S (#0)
#29. To: Brian S, buckaroo, A K A Stone (#0)
(Edited)
#30. To: jwpegler (#28)
#31. To: A K A Stone (#30)
(Edited)
I think they are grouped just fine.
#32. To: jwpegler (#31)
Which of the three grouping do you find fine? The Philonic grouping, the Talmudic grouping, or the Augustinian grouping?
#33. To: A K A Stone (#30)
#34. To: jwpegler (#33)
#35. To: A K A Stone (#32)
(Edited)
#36. To: A K A Stone (#34)
(Edited)
The ones in the King James Bible are correct
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]