Sen. Rick Santorum has made a serious mistake.
On Saturday, the presidential hopeful was addressing a group in Ohio when he made the unfortunate assertion that Obama's agenda is:
not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology.
The first reason this is a mistake is that Santorum has decided to make the presidential campaign about religious orthodoxy and introduced theology into politics in an aggressive way. His less than subtle message is that anyone who believes in the Bible, or even takes the Bible seriously, should be suspect of the president who is serving up 'false teachings' referencing Matthew 7:15 which reads: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves."
Santorum's recent comments should be a major turn off to anyone who understands that while all politics are informed by values, religious and secular, we should be very wary when politicians begin to assert religious creedal tests into electoral politics.
Earlier this year I spoke with Senator John Danforth who has thought a lot about religion and politics. Senator Danforth reminded me that:
The language of politics is different than the language of religion -- politics is not religion. The language of religion is based on creedal affirmation, while the language of politics, when it works, is the language of compromise. To confuse politics for religion results in gridlock from the political perspective. To confuse politics for religion from the religious perspective is idolatry.
The second mistake by Sen. Santorum is that his casting stones and judging President Obama's biblical understanding comes at a time when serious questions have to be asked about Sen. Santorum's own grasp of biblical teachings.
At the Detroit Economic Club, Sen. Santorum explained his position on income inequality between the rich and the poor saying: "There is income inequality in America. There always has been and hopefully, and I do say that, there always will be."
Senator Santorum stated this hope for the inequality between the rich and the poor in Detroit -- a city that has suffered from enormous deprivation in the past decades. As Charles Blow reminded readers in the New York Times: "Among the more than 70 cities with populations over 250,000, Detroit's poverty rate topped the list at a whopping 37.6 percent, more than twice the national poverty rate."
Mr. Santorum should be careful in his efforts to score political points using biblical mandates on the same week that he shows such callousness towards the lives of the poor. If we know anything about the concerns of the prophets of the Hebrew Bible and of Jesus of the New Testament, it is that they had harsh words for the rich who grow richer while the poor suffer, and the inequality in America over the last 30 years has become biblically blasphemous.
Rick Santorum was wrong to make his campaign about religious orthodoxy, and wrong again about religious orthodoxy when it came to his own campaign.
|
|
Pastori Balele said on 20 Monday 2012 am29 3:21 am: The Republican Party has lost it. At one time we had Herman Cain as front runner. He wanted to kill all Mexicans and Blacks. He was in love with white women and loved to grope them. Cain lost. Then we had Gingrich - a problem with open marriage; adultery and corruption. GOP dumped him. All over sudden we had Mitt Romney who shipped his money to be used by Swiss people instead of fellow Americans; Romney hates blacks and poor Whites. Romney also wanted us all to be Mormons. That did sit well with Republicans. They dumped Romney. Now we have Santorum who want us all to be Catholics. But Santorum said all Blacks were food stamp suckers. I don't know if Blacks will vote for him. We ran out GOP candidates. Please join me to vote for President Obama in November. |
Post a Comment
Follow Paul Brandeis Raushenbush on Twitter: www.twitter.com/raushenbush
Two rich conservatives' donations help to keep Rick Santorum ...
Santorum Tax Cuts For The Rich
First Read - Santorum: Obama believes in 'phony theology' not ...
Santorum stands by statement that Obama's theology not based on ...
Santorum says Obama agenda not based on Bible | Reuters
Santorum: Obama Pushes 'Agenda' Based on 'Some Phony Theology'
I care about how a man's faith affects his character. Is he an honest man? Does he care about others?
But really, I have friends who are very faithful Christians who I would never vote for, and I have atheist friends who I would vote for, because I agree with them politically. All things being equal, I'd love to vote for a politician who has a strong, sincere faith. But I am afraid the American political system would probably cause him to compromise so much that his faith might become useless.
While the First Amendment of the Constitution does NOT guarantee separation of church and state, it DOES guarantee freedom of religion.
Jesus himself was the first to suggest separation. when he was asked a political question (should we pay taxes to Caesar) - he gave a completely non-political answer: "Give to Ceasar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
The problem is that the last 40-50 years, the courts have gone past separation to the government, in some cases, opposing religion. That is unconstitutional.
We waste a lot of time on stupid things like words - "one nation under god" and "in god we trust" and the 10 commandments on a courtroom or school wall. These are non-issues. We are not better or worse off with any of these things.
As a christian (a really committed one at that), I think it is a joke we have "in god we trust" on our money. Not because it violates separation (It doesn't) but because it isn't true. America trusts the money, not God.
The problem today is that if a candidate is religious, many on the left want to take away his right to govern. Why are atheists or non-religious believers more capable and more deserving than believers? This is where this whole conversation started. People are opposing Santorum (and Mitt) because of their religious beliefs, not their policies.
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves."
Rick Santorum wanst our government to be run by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.
The United States is not a theocracy.
Looking at the theocracies left in the world it becomes clear that when a country is governed by religion it stagnates, because laws are not allowed to change and the countries are therefore ruled by laws written thousands of years in the past.
And when Rick Santorum talks about the President of the United States being influenced by a “phony theocracy” not base on the Bible, he is saying he feels the United States should be governed by a theocracy based on the Bible: Based on his religion, which he believes to be the one true religion in the world, all others be damned.
The freedom of religion guaranteed in this country means we have the right to practice any religion we choose: Not to be allowed to force the government to adhere to your religious laws.
If we begin running this country by religious laws we will stagnate and cease to be a great country.
If you don’t believe me take a look at those great countries ruled by religious law such as Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, and Oman.
Do we want to be just like them?
If you do, theocracy is the way to go.
www.johnhourihan.wordpess.com
However, it is not fair to say that because Santorum has spiritual values and thinks they are important that he wants a theocracy. That is a huge overstatement.
He didn't say Obama had a phony theocracy, but a phony THEOLOGY. He was questioning the president's faith. Now I question it too, based on his actions, but such a statement, in my opinion, has no place in the political arena. That is something 2 people can discuss privately. I'm not afraid to discuss my faith with anyone, but I'm not into calling someone out publicly as a phony Christian.
Google Theocracy. The definition says it's when priests or religious leaders rule in the name of God. Santorum is not a religious leader. There is nothing wrong with a president having a personal morality based on something bigger than himself, something besides self-interest or lust for power.
Was our government under Washington a Theocracy? He said, "reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle". He was sworn in with his hand upon a Bible, as Presidents are today, and following inauguration he went with a crowd to the Episcopal Church for a 2 hour worship service. John Adams said, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other." We are finding out how right Adams was, because a scoundrel can always find a way around the constitution.
There is a huge difference between expecting government to stay out of church business, which is guaranteed by the first amendment, and government requiring all women to wear a burqa.
information? Please, go bother someone else. If you want to vote for Santorum,
go ahead, live by the tenets of the Catholic religion. Have your boss decide
what insurance you can have and what you can't have. I don't care. If you vote
for such a man you get what you deserve. Government will be happy to stay out of
the Catholic church's business if the Catholic church stops taking money from
the government to keep alive its schools and hospitals. I am happy you are
outthere having an opinion. It is better than having none. You have made your
opinion clear ,now go bother someone else. Thank you
In 1960, when John F. Kennedy ran, the GOP said, “He is a Catholic. Do you want the Vatican running our country?”
Now the GOP is saying, not to be a Catholic is evil.
When Rick Santorum said the president’s policies were based on a “phony theology,” I believed he knew that some fools listening would say “Oh, that right. He’s a Muslim.”
The next day, Alice Stewart, a Santorum aide called that “false theology” by a new name “radical Islam.”
Then she called back and said she meant to say “radical environmental policies” which we can all see is pretty damn close to “radical Islam.”
In 1960, it was bad to be a Catholic. In 2012, it is good to be a Catholic. The Republicans say so.
Is this about religion, or about which lie will get their guy
elected?
“It isn’t about you. It isn’t about your quality of life. It is about the phony use of theology as a weapon to demonize a human being who doesn’t deserve to be demonized by people who will say one thing and then the exact opposite to get elected.”
Being Catholic can’t be evil and good – can’t be black and white so to speak.
What part of NOT BEARING FALSE WITNESS don't you understand
1. GWB already proved that we are not able to help our own nation in a diaster..ask New Orleans
2. The premier economists in the country say Mr Santorum economic plan would add to debt.
3. The country was founded on moral values but not on religion, please see TheTripoli Treaty.
4. Pres Obama is againist tolerance this is a man who been called muslim, a monkey, a liar etc..
5. Pres Obama doesn't respect others..the man has done nothing but turn the other cheek.
6. Statistically you facts on oil are wrong we actually imported less than we have in nearly 20 yrs
7. Laughing stock.. our world standing has actually risen w/ Pres Obama and Mrs Clinton.
8. Cutting the miltary 57 cents of every dollar the fed gov't takes in... is spent on the miltary.
9. Redistributing wealth he is asking for 4% tax increase from the 1% this is fair & equitable.
With regard to the constitution Mr. Obama does not make the laws the legislative branch does and the judicial branch decides whether it is constitutional or not. American was already bankrupt when he took office we were in 7,7 trillion dollars in debt and unless Bush 2 tax cuts are reversed, we put people back to work and cut spending we will continue to have more debt. That statement is not politics it is math. .
oh
he already read and is following those instructions.