2008: Rick Santorum on "mainline Protestantism" in the U.S.

[Peach]

"We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic. But the Judeo-Christian ethic -- sure the Catholics had some influence -- but this was a Protestant country. And the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is a shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it."

From a presentation at Ave Maria University in Florida

Wars and other conflicts amongst the various Christian sects/denominations were the primary inspiration for our separation of church and state.

I guess Santorum didn't get the memo.

I think he used the Constitution to line a bird cage, probably a Cuckoo bird.

 

[JoeB131]

Which 4 not-Romneys have you seen me go after?

Perry, Cain, Newt and RIck. That I've seen.

This is not the first time you've accused me of going after Cain. I did a quick skim through past posts and was reminded of another time when you said that while I was still defending Cain.

I also do not recall going after Perry. [Edit: ah, are you referring to my post upon learning about the Willingham case?]

I've been bashing Newt merrily along - with the exception of a short span when he briefly won me over much to my surprise before he showed himself to be the same person I had long despised.

And now I'm going after Santorum.

I did used to go after Bachmann, back before I started posting here. Her elementary school level history gaffes were excrutiatingly painful.

And I went after Huckabee back then.

My reason for going after Santorum is related to my reason for going after Huckabee. I don't like politicians who talk about religion so much.

I'm an atheist, and I don't mind that they talk about religion, or wear their religion on their sleeves.

It means I know what the score is.

The Reason Romney's religion scares me is that he believes some absolutely batshit crazy stuff, and he doesn't want to talk about it.

I'd rather have someone who up front I may not agree with, than someone who is deliberately trying to hide something from me.

 

[Mac1958]

And in more recent news ....

Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator known for his social conservative views, said Obama's agenda is based on "some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology."

Rick Santorum questions Obama's Christian values


Doesn't Santorum realize people are listening?

HOLY CRAP

I'm no longer easily surprised by politics, but this one flat-out shocked me. Hey Rick, we're supposed to be following the Constitution, not your bible, or didn't you know that?

On what day, Rick, would you make America a theocracy? I'd wanna circle that one on my calendar.

Astonishing.

.

 

[Old Rocks]

Most of the leading founding fathers of this nation were not Christians, they were Diests.

The Christian Nation Myth

Whenever the Supreme Court makes a decision that in any way restricts the intrusion of religion into the affairs of government, a flood of editorials, articles, and letters protesting the ruling is sure to appear in the newspapers. Many protesters decry these decisions on the grounds that they conflict with the wishes and intents of the "founding fathers."

Such a view of American history is completely contrary to known facts. The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible.

These beliefs were forcefully articulated by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason, a book that so outraged his contemporaries that he died rejected and despised by the nation that had once revered him as "the father of the American Revolution." To this day, many mistakenly consider him an atheist, even though he was an out spoken defender of the Deistic view of God. Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Aren't we so lucky to have a presidential candidate who is not afraid to declare publicly that millions of religious Americans who consider themselves Christians are in fact "gone from the world of Christianity" ....

Gee.....lemme guess......God told him, that, huh??

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And in more recent news ....

Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator known for his social conservative views, said Obama's agenda is based on "some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology."

Rick Santorum questions Obama's Christian values


Doesn't Santorum realize people are listening?

If that guy thinks that the hatred he practices is based in the bible he needs to go back to Sunday school, a decent one this time.

Maybe his ultimate-target is Pat Robertson's gig!!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And in more recent news ....

Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator known for his social conservative views, said Obama's agenda is based on "some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology."

Rick Santorum questions Obama's Christian values


Doesn't Santorum realize people are listening?

Many people question Obama's Christian values. He is for tax-payer funded abortion on demand.

That's what Porky Limbaugh says, huh?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And in more recent news ....



Rick Santorum questions Obama's Christian values


Doesn't Santorum realize people are listening?

Many people question Obama's Christian values. He is for tax-payer funded abortion on demand.

But hey, carry on with your phoney outrage.

I question much Obama has said about religion. I don't think it's appropriate for a presidential candidate to talk about large swaths of his would-be constituency in the way that Obama spoke of religious people in the heartland.

.....Saying what??

​

 

[Mac1958]

.

Now that I think this through a bit, I'm gonna pull for Santorum and his hard right social agenda to get the nomination. Two reasons:

First, it would be great fun watching him in debates, now that he has both questioned Obama's faith and inferred that an American President should run the country with an agenda based on Rick's bible. The entertainment value here is almost impossible to measure. Better break out the abacus for this one.

Second, his nomination would open the door nice and wide for a calm, mature, reasonable Independent to slide into the race and give the rest of us someone to vote for. The danger here is that Santorum is so far right that Obama would need to spend virtually no effort completely taking over the middle, so this candidate would need to move quickly. Hell, at this point, all Obama has to do is point at the GOP and say, "hey, look at THAT", and he won't have to worry about losing.

Some of us would like two strong "main" parties in this country. Don't we at least deserve that?

.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic. But the Judeo-Christian ethic -- sure the Catholics had some influence -- but this was a Protestant country. And the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is a shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it."

From a presentation at Ave Maria University in Florida

And this is wrong, because?

Not a religious guy, but really, you see these mainstream Protestant Churches that don't teach about Hell anymore.....

You prefer vulnerable-people being taught fairy-tales???????

*

​

 

[Mac1958]

.

I dunno. Teaching about hell is pretty simple, I'd think, no need for the church to burn much time on it. Maybe ten seconds a day: "Do exactly what we say, or you'll fry in the fire pits of hell for all eternity. You'll watch your skin sizzle forever as you scream in agony. Now, where's your tithe?"

Something like that.

.

 

[JoeB131]

.

Now that I think this through a bit, I'm gonna pull for Santorum and his hard right social agenda to get the nomination. Two reasons:

First, it would be great fun watching him in debates, now that he has both questioned Obama's faith and inferred that an American President should run the country with an agenda based on Rick's bible. The entertainment value here is almost impossible to measure. Better break out the abacus for this one.

Second, his nomination would open the door nice and wide for a calm, mature, reasonable Independent to slide into the race and give the rest of us someone to vote for. The danger here is that Santorum is so far right that Obama would need to spend virtually no effort completely taking over the middle, so this candidate would need to move quickly. Hell, at this point, all Obama has to do is point at the GOP and say, "hey, look at THAT", and he won't have to worry about losing.

Some of us would like two strong "main" parties in this country. Don't we at least deserve that?

.

I think you underestimate the religious stupidity in this country.

Most of the rank and file types who vote really do take this bible stuff seriously, even if they don't actually know what is in the bible. Seriously, the most fun I have with bible thumpers is pointing out some of the most truly outrageous stories in the bible that they were never taught in Sunday School because "God" was "off message".

Santorum is doing himself no disservice wearing his religion on his sleeve.

I also think he'd be a stronger candidate in the general than Romney would, because he reflects where a lot of people are right now. His message resonates with a blue-collar working class that is hurting, compared to "I'm not really concerned about the poor" Romney.

Obama will probably win because the economy has made a tepid enough recovery where people who vote for him last time can justify their mistake in their own heads. He really doesn't deserve to, but the system is rigged to favor incumbants in general. Thank God for the 22nd Amendment.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And in more recent news ....

Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator known for his social conservative views, said Obama's agenda is based on "some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology."

Rick Santorum questions Obama's Christian values


Doesn't Santorum realize people are listening?

Um, yeah, if you go to a CHurch where the pastor is shreiking "God Damn America!" and "AIDS is a government plot!" I would call that a pretty phony theology.

Don't forget those sadistic-pricks who threaten people with eternal-damnation.....if those people won't believe what THAT crazy-****** is selling.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic. But the Judeo-Christian ethic -- sure the Catholics had some influence -- but this was a Protestant country. And the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is a shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it."

From a presentation at Ave Maria University in Florida

Once again, Santorum isn't afraid to speak the truth...

Gee......

.....which ONES?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Aren't we so lucky to have a presidential candidate who is not afraid to declare publicly that millions of religious Americans who consider themselves Christians are in fact "gone from the world of Christianity" ....



And this is better than Obama's bitter clinger homily or Obama's speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in what way?

People can proclaim themselves Chrisians all they want, regardless of denomination. But unless they repent and change their lives and develop the virtues and character traits that Christ taught, their profession is pointless.

Who (actually) KNOWS what he taught......and, when all-of-a-sudden did you Jesus-freaks start idolizing some Black-dude?????

 

[Mac1958]

I think you underestimate the religious stupidity in this country.

LOL, damn near made me spit out my coffee. I do tend to give people too much credit at times. One of my myriad character flaws.

.

Now that I think this through a bit, I'm gonna pull for Santorum and his hard right social agenda to get the nomination. Two reasons:

First, it would be great fun watching him in debates, now that he has both questioned Obama's faith and inferred that an American President should run the country with an agenda based on Rick's bible. The entertainment value here is almost impossible to measure. Better break out the abacus for this one.

Second, his nomination would open the door nice and wide for a calm, mature, reasonable Independent to slide into the race and give the rest of us someone to vote for. The danger here is that Santorum is so far right that Obama would need to spend virtually no effort completely taking over the middle, so this candidate would need to move quickly. Hell, at this point, all Obama has to do is point at the GOP and say, "hey, look at THAT", and he won't have to worry about losing.

Some of us would like two strong "main" parties in this country. Don't we at least deserve that?

.

Most of the rank and file types who vote really do take this bible stuff seriously, even if they don't actually know what is in the bible. Seriously, the most fun I have with bible thumpers is pointing out some of the most truly outrageous stories in the bible that they were never taught in Sunday School because "God" was "off message".

Santorum is doing himself no disservice wearing his religion on his sleeve.

I also think he'd be a stronger candidate in the general than Romney would, because he reflects where a lot of people are right now. His message resonates with a blue-collar working class that is hurting, compared to "I'm not really concerned about the poor" Romney.

If we're looking at the contrasts between two stunningly bad candidates, I guess it's fair to say that Romney could look even worse than Santorum. But my guess is that, especially after the Dems are done with him, the only people Santorum would attract in the general would be the hardcore "anyone but Obama, literally" voters. Obama, or Obama and a rational Independent, get the rest.

I suppose Santorum could have a chance in the general if Obama and the Independent split the vote. That opens the door to some questions about electoral vote totals.

From what I've seen, you've been honest all along about the state of the GOP field, and the fact that Obama's chances are clearly increasing with the (slow) improvement of the economy.

My guess is that, unless something big goes south between now and November (and/or the GOP gets an actual candidate), Obama wins, and it won't be terribly close. The next question is the down-ballot voting.

.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Perry, Cain, Newt and RIck. That I've seen.

This is not the first time you've accused me of going after Cain. I did a quick skim through past posts and was reminded of another time when you said that while I was still defending Cain.

I also do not recall going after Perry. [Edit: ah, are you referring to my post upon learning about the Willingham case?]

I've been bashing Newt merrily along - with the exception of a short span when he briefly won me over much to my surprise before he showed himself to be the same person I had long despised.

And now I'm going after Santorum.

I did used to go after Bachmann, back before I started posting here. Her elementary school level history gaffes were excrutiatingly painful.

And I went after Huckabee back then.

My reason for going after Santorum is related to my reason for going after Huckabee. I don't like politicians who talk about religion so much.

I'm an atheist, and I don't mind that they talk about religion, or wear their religion on their sleeves.

It means I know what the score is.

The Reason Romney's religion scares me is that he believes some absolutely batshit crazy stuff, and he doesn't want to talk about it.

I'd rather have someone who up front I may not agree with, than someone who is deliberately trying to hide something from me.

Same, here......like those Ministers/Clerics/holy-men who insist they talk to God.....'cause they've (purposely) got no marketable job-skills.

Whatta hu$tle.

 

[JoeB131]

If we're looking at the contrasts between two stunningly bad candidates, I guess it's fair to say that Romney could look even worse than Santorum. But my guess is that, especially after the Dems are done with him, the only people Santorum would attract in the general would be the hardcore "anyone but Obama, literally" voters. Obama, or Obama and a rational Independent, get the rest.

I suppose Santorum could have a chance in the general if Obama and the Independent split the vote. That opens the door to some questions about electoral vote totals.

From what I've seen, you've been honest all along about the state of the GOP field, and the fact that Obama's chances are clearly increasing with the (slow) improvement of the economy.

My guess is that, unless something big goes south between now and November (and/or the GOP gets an actual candidate), Obama wins, and it won't be terribly close. The next question is the down-ballot voting.

.

HIstorically, when a third party guy has cut into an incumbant's lead, it's usually because his own base has been has been disaffected. I think this was the case with John Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in 1992.

I think the breakdown will be about 52-48 in Obama's favor. I think he'll win, but he won't do as well as he did in 2008. For one thing, the young folks who came out for him in droves in 2008 will be disaffected.

Of course, Obama doesn't HAVE to do as well. He just has to do well enough. He can lose NC, VA, IN and FL, and still win the election.

Romney won't retake those states, but Santorum might. I think Santorum can also give him a run for his money in Rust Belt states where the recovery has been, how do I put this, lacking?

Now, downballot is a more interesting question.

The Senate is a lost cause for Obama. The Democrats are defending to many seats. The GOP only has two vulnerable seats- Nevada and Massachusetts. The Democrats will definitely lose ND and NE's open seats. So best case scenario, everything blowing in the right direction, the best they can hope for is to maintain teh status quo. They also have 6 seats that are tossups- FL, MI, MO, MT, VA and WI. The last two are open seats.

On the house side, the bigger issue is going to be dedistricting more than any surge. I think any coattails Obama has will be nullified by the Gerrymandering that was done.

Now, that said, historically, when incumbants have been returned, they don't really have long coattails. Bush won in 2004, but he only gained 4 seats in the Senate and 4 in the house. Clinton lost two senate seats and gained only 9 house seats. Reagan won 49 states and the biggest landslide since FDR, but only gained 16 house seats and actually lost a net seat in the Senate.

So it's very likely that Obama, if re-elected, will not have much joy in Congress. It's more likely that the voters will return Obama and a GOP Congress to keep an eye on him.

And in 2014, Obama is kind of screwed, because all those Senate Seats he picked up in 2008 will be up for re-election. He's a lame duck in 2015.

 

[Amelia]

Perry, Cain, Newt and RIck. That I've seen.

This is not the first time you've accused me of going after Cain. I did a quick skim through past posts and was reminded of another time when you said that while I was still defending Cain.

I also do not recall going after Perry. [Edit: ah, are you referring to my post upon learning about the Willingham case?]

I've been bashing Newt merrily along - with the exception of a short span when he briefly won me over much to my surprise before he showed himself to be the same person I had long despised.

And now I'm going after Santorum.

I did used to go after Bachmann, back before I started posting here. Her elementary school level history gaffes were excrutiatingly painful.

And I went after Huckabee back then.

My reason for going after Santorum is related to my reason for going after Huckabee. I don't like politicians who talk about religion so much.

I'm an atheist, and I don't mind that they talk about religion, or wear their religion on their sleeves.

It means I know what the score is.

The Reason Romney's religion scares me is that he believes some absolutely batshit crazy stuff, and he doesn't want to talk about it.

I'd rather have someone who up front I may not agree with, than someone who is deliberately trying to hide something from me.

As I've noted before, the LDS I'm aware of who don't live in Utah are very good at keeping their religion out of their politics. Why should he tell you about something which doesn't impact his governance?

The people who talk about their religion are telling you where their priorities are. Santorum is telling us that he will back the members of congress who care more about restricting a woman's access to abortion than they do about things like fixing roads and making sure that they keep the upper hand in the fight to make sure that we have the best military in the world. When they talk about religion and when they devote their time to social legislation, they pretty much hand over all the leverage they would have had for arguments in favor of more domestic oil production, etc.

But go ahead and hold it against Romney that he is NOT compromising the dialogue by saying judgmental, exclusionary stuff based on his religious beliefs.

 

[konradv]

"We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic. But the Judeo-Christian ethic -- sure the Catholics had some influence -- but this was a Protestant country. And the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is a shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it."

From a presentation at Ave Maria University in Florida

Catholics had "some" influence? When it comes to education, except for the 1%, it was either government schools or Catholic schools.