Rick Santorum is a strange, strange man. More we hear of him, the more frightening the thought that a man as disturbed as he could possibly one day occupy the White House. Santorum’s religious zealotry utilizes Christian dogma as an excuse to spread a special brand of hate and divisiveness. And while his homophobic bigotry is a well documented fact, his religious bigotry might be a little less known.
Rick Santorum has sought to project a sunny suburban, regular guy appeal as he vies for the GOP presidential nomination. But whenever I have seen him during the campaign, there seems to be a seething and loathing just beneath the surface that he has to struggle to keep from leaking out.
But back in 2008, while a senior fellow of the neoconservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, we got a glimpse of what it is that is so churning under his public face. In a speech, he quietly explained to students at Ave Maria University, in Naples, Florida that Satan, the “Father of Lies”, is destroying America. Part of Satan’s effort, according to Santorum, has been to so transform the mainline Protestant churches in America — that they are no longer even Christian.
This may come as a surprise to the 45 million people of the member communions of the National Council of Churches, such as The Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church (USA). But Santorum’s view that the mainline churches have gone the way of Satan is unambiguous — as is his suggestion that his own Catholic Church remains Satan free.
Can there be any doubt that a President Santorum would seek to create a theocratic state governed primarily by his strict interpretation of the Bible? Over the weekend, he criticized President Obama as one who adheres to “some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology.“ Santorum later explained the theology he was referring to.
“I accept the fact that the president’s a Christian,” he said. “I just said that when you have a worldview that elevates the Earth above man, and says that, you know, we can’t take those resources because we’re going to harm the Earth by things that frankly are just not scientifically proven, like for example that politicization of the whole global warming debate, this is just all an attempt to centralize power, to give more power to the government.”
The well-being of the planet, Santorum tells us, should not be our concern. It is God’s. Our job is to simply rip open the earth’s crust and fill up our pockets as best and fast as we can – not unlike a child let loose in a candy store. The consequences of our deed are not our worldly concern.
Rick Santorum is a sick fuck. He really is.
The thing to know about Santorum, unlike Romney, is that he honestly believes each and every word he says. It’s not an act. When he speaks of banning contraception or when he compares homosexual conduct to bestiality or when he states his belief that Satan has infiltrated every religion except Catholicism, the man is serious. He leaves no doubt that every decision he would make as president would be guided by those very same beliefs.
Conservatives and Republicans have a clear choice in choosing their next presidential nominee. They can pick an empty shell who has no core beliefs or they can have a man who views the world as a battle, literally, between God and Satan and would thereby base his decisions on a personal interpretation of the Bible. How lovely a choice.
If ever there was a lose-lose proposition being offered to Americans, this is it.
(The Rick Santorum source photograph for this illustration is a Creative Commons licensed image from photographer Gage Skidmore.)
__
Follow MarioPiperniDotCom on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.
.
@Tommy. Thanks for the softball.
Santorum criticized environmentalists for having a “worldview that elevates the Earth above man, and says that, you know, we can’t take those resources because we’re going to harm the Earth by things that frankly are just not scientifically proven.”
Tell me, how is one to be a “good steward” of the earth if you begin from a premise which states that environmentalists and those of us who actually care about this planet are using unproven science?
Santorum is following a decades old conservative/Republican agenda which favors the exploration and digging up of earth’s resources regardless of the long term damage done to the planet.
What do you think global warming denialism is all about? It’s about protecting the interests of big oil and the other fossil fuel industries at the expense of trying to save our planet.
What do you think deregulation of big oil is all about? Did the Gulf oil spill not show you exactly what Santorum and his buddies are all about? It’s about screw the planet as long as we rape it for all its got. That’s what Santorum is saying when he said “man is not here to serve the earth“, what do you thing he’s saying?
Listen Tommy, we’re not talking hypotheticals here. The right has shown what they’re all about when it comes to the interests of corporations. The environment takes a back seat. If Santorum was calling for greater regulations to prevent another BP spill or if he was warning us all about the impending catastrophe being shouted out by 97% of the world’s climate scientists – if he was doing any of that, then you’d have a valid point. But he isn’t.
Simply stated, I too would agree with Santorum’s line about being good stewards if he had credibility in that regard. He doesn’t.
Much of what Santorum says is outside the publicly stated positions of the Catholic church. He routinely ignores his church’s positions on social justice, opposition to the death penalty and preventive war, and, while he listens to the Catholic bishops on their positions with which he agrees, he chooses to ignore things like this, which is from an open letter written by Stocton CA Bishop Stephen E. Blaire to the US House of Representatives:
I’ve seen commenters post things about Santorum like this: “He is entitled to his views, and if his view of sex is that it should only exist within the framework of his marriage, then that’s fine.” And I say yes, he is entitled to his views, but he is not entitled to compel me, either by persuasion (as a candidate) or by force of law (as a
popeelected official) to either agree with his views or obey his wishes.Santorum has also said that he would die to prevent gay marriages. “The battle we’re engaged in right now is same sex marriage, ultimately that is the very foundation of our country, the family, what the family structure is going to look like. I’ll die on that hill.” Well, Mr. Frothy, be my guest. I think I would rather die than live under your theocratic rule.
I’ll close with a quote from one of the greatest politicians who has never held nor stood for office, John Cleese:
Speaking of jobless benefits,the maximum weeks were cut from 99 to 73 weeks. Imagine if you had to vote for one of the 4 remaining Republican candidates? I can’t live with any of these losers.
Yes, he is NOT Catholic, in that he only accepts the church’s teachings on sex, and discards everything else. I am not Catholic, but if I were, I would be raging at this mispresentation of the church.
This text, is from the same response that you selectively quoted, Mario.
“I think that a lot of radical environmentalists have it backwards, This idea that man is here to serve the earth, as opposed to husband its resources and be good stewards of the earth. Man is here to use the resources and use them wisely. But man is not here to serve the earth.”
I happen to agree with that view. Now, where in that line did you get this idea?
“The well-being of the planet, Santorum tells us, should not be our concern. It is God’s. Our job is to simply rip open the earth’s crust and fill up our pockets as best and fast as we can – not unlike a child let loose in a candy store. The consequences of our deed are not our worldly concern.”
As for E.A.’s comment, thanks for the softball.
“And I say yes, he is entitled to his views, but he is not entitled to compel me, either by persuasion (as a candidate) or by force of law (as a
popeelected official) to either agree with his views or obey his wishes.”That sentiment only applies to theological views, right E.A.? You’re fine with the idea of compelling people to agree with your views, when it comes to making them give up their property to fulfill your liberal definition of compassion.
I’ve asked this question before, without anyone taking the courtesy of answering me. What is the difference between compelling people through religion, and compelling people through government? To my view, they’re two sides of the same coin.
What part of “use them wisely”, doesn’t make sense to you?
The part that tells me Santorum is a lying bullshitter. He’s already stated that he won’t accept the science. You choose to ignore the man’s actions and hang your praise on empty words. It’s your choice.
I hang no praise on Santorum’s words, I just point out that you were selective in your post to suit your own viewpoint. He didn’t say what you inferred he did.
Let’s try this. Forget for a moment that I’m a liberal and you’re a libertarian. Let’s approach this from a purely logical perspective.
Say that some guy named Rick Foney preaches about the sanctity of life and how precious it is. But also say that you happen to be know that Rick once shot a man in Reno just to watch him die. Would you take issue with anyone who referred to Rick as a lying killer just because Rick claims that he believes in the sanctity of life?
I don’t think you would. Well, it’s the same thing here. Santorum’s words about stewardship are pretty but they’re meaningless because:
a) He also stated that he believes that any science or data which anyone pulls out showing that industry is doing damage to the planet will be ignored because it is “not scientifically proven”
and…
b) Santorum is against regulations to keep industry in check.
and…
c) Santorum is a religious nutcase who places the Bible before science.
Come on, Tommy…you know Santorum shot a man in Reno. Why defend him?
Ok Tommy, I will take a shot at your question.
“I’ve asked this question before, without anyone taking the courtesy of answering me. What is the difference between compelling people through religion, and compelling people through government? To my view, they’re two sides of the same coin.”
I can only speak for myself, so my thoughts may not fit with those of others here, but here goes. Religious governance is very different from societal governance. Religion is a matter of choice, not a one size fits all proposition ( I use the word proposition advisedly). There is a reason that the words “belief” and “faith” describe the tenets of every of the many different sects. Religiously you are free to choose the set of believes that most suit your personal needs. Religion can only compell you to the extent that you wish to be compelled.
In government we must have laws that are designed to secure and protect the common good and are binding on all (unless there are important reasons for certain exceptions), you don’t get to pick and choose, if it were a matter of choice there would be chaos. Government’s job is to create an environment that promotes the general welfare of the entire nation. Religion’s job is to look after the spiritual welfare of those parishioners who choose to be adherents ot it’s rules and beliefs. If your mind, heart or circumstances change you are free to change to another religion or pick no religion at all. If you don’t like the laws of the United States you can petition your law- makers to change the law and maybe they will, but you can’t make up your own laws or choose which ones to follow without legal repercussions.
That is just one short example of the difference, but to me it suggests the reason that the founders were wise enough to oppose a state religion and tried to set government up so that religion would not interfere in state affairs and government would do the same for the churches. Government and church have very different purposes and they must stay separate for the sake of freedom for all.
If you don’t agree, which religion would you like to run the country?
Just this evening, I heard on tape Santorum describing the morality of the left (and President Obama) as defective and that he sees the only salvation for the country to be a “return” to values he approves of. Yes, there is a difference between mandates regarding property and mandates regarding religion and conscience, and iof there are people who cannot see the difference between the two, there’s no use trying to explain the point. Santorum is talking about moral and social issues, and every point he makes is a point to limit a person’s choices based on a partnership between government and religion. Pane, if you think government by itself is bad, wait until you experience a theocracy.
If I wanted what Santorum wants, I would still be a practicing Catholic and probably a member of Opus Dei, but I left over forty years ago and have only set foot in a church for funerals since.
Thanks for your viewpoints guys.
For the most part, I agree with both of you. There is a legitimate role for government to help maintain a stable social infrastruction in which responsible individuals may live their lives per their own choices.
My question was a bit broader that your responses however. I’m looking for an explanation of the justifications you have for imposing your definition of compassion on others using the force of government, while complaining about someone suggesting that their ideas of morality should be imposed on you using the same force of government. Compassion vs morality, imposed by government. Is either right?
As for Santorum, Mario, I don’t defend the man. I’m defending one statement that he made which I agree with. Personally, I don’t like him.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/22/opinion/la-oe-gabler-morality-20110522
Being totally exhausted with the constant arguments with Libertarians, and why you see my attitude, as much as I try to be respectful, is ridiculously hard, when that wall we try to penetrate is more like a freakin iceberg. Iceberg in that the ideas I see them argue have a real effect on MY life, and others, people I know, and LOVE around me. I refuse to let fear grab a hold on me, and that is exactly what I deal with when I see Libertarians have grown, and managed to change the voters I use to know as compromising, bipartisan. Iceberg, in that there is no compassion allowed in the debate, other then to do everything possible to demean us that let compassion be a part of our/my views in politics, government, and without religion, accept in the case of our protected Constitutional rights to freedom of religion, {but for me to keep religious bias out of the conversation.} Knowing how people often make serious assumptions about me, and they are quite blunt in their words, that I simply don’t matter. I have been told several times by Libertarian voters over the recent years, that I am insignificant… So that is a big, fat punch in the gut clue, that compassion plays no roll at all in the future, what they see for our government, and country as a whole.
In my personal history, we are people that believe in working for a living. Saving for things we might want, now, and in the future. When bad things happen, especially in the cost of living, in today’s modern society, that can have an effect that will change not just the one person the bad thing happened to, but the many that are around them, forever. People are envisioning a future of suffering, when it doesn’t have to be that way. We did what we were suppose to do to prepare for our future. For 35 working years we did our part, and now we are falling apart, physically, financially, with everything taken from us, to be told that we should learn to live by our own means. This is a death sentence to the majority of those that have no options to living by there own means. The kicker is, that just doesn’t bother them. It’s easy for them to deny people, to turn away from them, to leave people behind. I get the same thing concerning our environment, pollution, anything that would cause the slow progress of polluting type jobs. There is no regard to what serious harmful effects some jobs might have where anything living might get sick, or die from.
By reading some of your comments – Though not all as there’s a lot to read; I realize that there is really a sort of fear among many of us concerning Rick Santorum. Of course, our better judgment says that there’s no way that this guy is going to get past a general election if he manages to snag the Republican nomination, which is very possible I suppose, given that Republicans have moved so far to the right.
But still, most of us liberals have this fear of thinking; what if? What if the tide turned so against Obama and Santorum had the nomination and suddenly, we have this man in the White House? Scary thought, I know. It would be like having the American Taliban running our country, the land of the free. Women’s rights would be at stake along with the long-fought battle of gay people’s rights. His religion would be applied to everything he could apply it to, and it would even be a lot worse if the Republicans kept control of the House of Representatives and also won a super majority in the Senate. We just thought George W. Bush was the worse president ever – Rick Santorum would make him look like a light weight.
I’m sure though if he gets the nomination, women and gays and anyone else who cherishes their freedom, will be motivated to get out to the polls and vote to keep this man from the White House. In fact, it might be just what Democrats need to really motivate the base and independents come election day to get out and vote for Obama.
I absolutely agree which is the reason I hope Mr. Santorum does snag the nomination. As dismayed as I often am at the apathy of the American people and their unwillingness to get informed, I do not believe that in this day and age, they would ever elect Rick Santorum as their president.
Hello fellow Piperni Posters. I got home tonight at 9:30 after spending 15½ hours at the local elections as a poll worker. It’s a long and sometimes boring day (today’s election was a local primary and there were only 110 voters all day), and it’s taking me a while to catch up on the day’s news. If you’re interested in a whole gaggle of Santorum editorial cartoons, click on the link.
It’s almost inevitable that some of the conversation at a polling place turns to politics, and one fellow worker has not been following the news in great detail, and when I told her about some of the things Santorum has been saying, she was horrified.
E.A. Blair,
I’m sure there’s a lot of women that aren’t paying that much attention to the news right now but will more once we get into the general election. And, if Santorum does turn out to be the nominee, many more of them will begin to hear some of the outlandish things he says concerning women’s issues.
I suspect even many Republican women voters will be turned off to Santorum and even if they don’t vote for Obama, they won’t be going to the polls to vote for Santorum.
So glad these opinions make up the minority left. Obama is the worse president ever.Please remember that every civilization fell when they made homosexuality the mainstream. Sodom and Gomorrah, Roman Empire. Let’s stop worrying about “Women’s Rights” and think about the rights of the unborn human being.
No one but you believes that the Roman Empire fell because of homosexuals. Try reading history instead of making it up as you go along.
” Let’s stop worrying about “Women’s Rights” and think about the rights of the unborn human being.”
Maria:
I can’t even believe that anyone would say a thing like that. Do you think that women are nothing more important than baby making factories? It is ludicrous to give rights to embryos and zygotes, they aren’t sentient beings they are at best potential beings in some possible future. To give rights to fetuses over the women who carry them is absurd on so many levels that one could not propose such a thing after carefully weighing the facts. Life is after all a practical affair no matter what religious beliefs one/you might hold. Can you understand that what is good for you might not be good for others and that they should have the right to choose for themselves what they believe is right?
People like you talk all the time about your rights and getting government out of your affairs then turn around and do your best to force your personal beliefs on those you disagree with.
Greece, Rome, Sodom and Gommorah historically began to face their demise when they made immorality the mainstream belief, i.e. homosexuality,illicit sexual behavior, etc. Read your history please and you will be well informed. I get the feeling you don’t want to have an open forum but just want to spew hate. Dinamic, I feel sorry for you and our country that is so very divided. Yes, I do believe that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder.
Sure Maria,
Let’s think about those unborn children and then once they’re born, let’s make sure that they live a life of poverty because we’re so busy protecting tax cuts for the wealthy and putting blame on the mothers of those children for everything.
Children starve to death every day and you could care less about those kids because your kind of people call any kind of program that helps them “Socialism” as a way to relieve yourself of guilt.
You talk about morality and about unborn children and about other people’s sex lives while you enrich the rich.
I think Jesus put it best when he called religious people like you “vipers” and “hypocrites”. Your lips profess righteousness but your hearts are far from him.
Or maybe Paul put in best in these words:
“What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Romans 3:9-18”
I think when someone like you comes on here and starts throwing all this judgment around, talking about homosexuality like you’re some pure, righteous person who’s above sin, then it’s time you take a look in the mirror and see yourself for what you really are. God knows you too and He doesn’t approve of the way you treat His children, you and all your little conservative friends.