Everybody knows Newt Gingrich loves to pontificate, but now he’s decided to simply elect himself Pope – not that you’d recognize it from his public statements.

Gingrich says he isn’t speaking as a “religious leader” – even though he’s running for world leader and spreading the gospel, sometimes against people’s will, far and wide.

He’s also said he’s not a  a “saint”  and that part’s true enough. The guy is a serial adulterer with woefully weak saintly qualifications, even if he did beg “God’s forgiveness” for trying to convince the exes to agree with an open marriage.

Pissing Off All Christendom

The occasion of his remarks was an address to an Atlanta church where he warned the “secular left” is on a – to borrow a good Christian word – 50-year crusade to piss off all of Christendom.

The far right are great believers in a fundamentalist Constitution as fundamentalist as their faith – and woe be unto the secularist who would dare to disagree. Yet, the Constitution says not one word about the Ten Commandments nor any other religious teachings. The only thing the First Amendment specifically mentions is, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or of prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

There are two things wrong about that. First, religion ain’t free. America offers religious institutions tax-free status and proposed special dispensations, like not “forcing” religious institutions to deny equal access to health services by complaining their beliefs might be violated.

But hey, I’m an Atheist and I’d sure like a tax break too. I’d also like to get health services from any hospital when I need it.

But Newt isn’t the only one offering such “advice” to deny secularists (and in some cases other religions) the same rights he enjoys as a recidivist adulterer.

Rick Santorum is the leader of the lemming wing of the GOP that’s running over the cliff and pulling their party down behind them. Still, he marches to the same hypocritical drum, one whose cadence beats a little something like this:

“I’m for separation of church and state. The state has no business telling the church what do to,” Rum-Drunk Ricky said in a recent Michigan speech. But out of the other side of his mouth came, “I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said during an ABC interview. 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.”

Who, Who, Who Let the Snake Out”?

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but how is religion having “influence” and “involvement” in secular affairs the separation of church and state he sees in his non-secular, Christian Garden of Eden?

It sounds like someone has been in the snake’s apple barrel to me.

Santorum has other fears too. He thinks colleges and universities are the work of the Devil. He told noted ignorati, Glenn Beck, that academic “indoctrination mills” steal religious faith. “Sixty-two percent of kids who go into college with a faith commitment leave without it.”

No wonder he called Obama a “snob”  for encouraging, “everybody in America to go to college”. But Rick, aren’t you a “snob” too? You have more degrees than Obama.

The highly educated “non-snob” reads something other than the Bible though. He “almost threw up” after reading a 1960 speech by John F. Kennedy who said he believed, “in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute”. Apparently, Rick has a weak stomach for any opinion suggesting America will not be doomed by the forces of evil secularists, even if many are actually non-lefty Christians.

Newt, how do you square your thinking? How can religion be under a 50-year attack when it gets the perks secularists can only dream of?

Rick, you like to point out that Mittens flips and flops like a flag in a gale, but how can you claim you’re foursquare in favor of the separation principle, but in the next breath say, “I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute?”

I remember John F. Kennedy and neither of you is John F. Kennedy. If you get all puke-stained over a 40-year old speech that maintains the same principles you claim to share, something is wrong.

Wrong with you, not him.

If you’re going to draw these iffy analogies, ask yourself in an inside voice what the opposing view may be. Check yourself against talking out of your sanctimonious assholes and, at least, get your story straight.

You can’t have it both ways.

Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!