Associated Press
As Santorum gains more attention, he raises the rhetorical temperature.
Like all Republican presidential candidates, Rick Santorum tends to be unrelenting in his daily criticisms of President Obama. But over the weekend, the former senator broke some new and unsettling ground.
At another stop in Ohio on Saturday, Mr. Santorum waded into what he called the "phony theology" of Mr. Obama's agenda.
"It's about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology," he said. "But no less a theology."
In later comments to reporters, Mr. Santorum said while there are "a lot of different stripes" of Christianity, he believes that "if the president says he's a Christian, he's a Christian."
Given the larger context -- the right has questioned the sincerity of Obama's faith for many years -- Santorum assertion about a "phony theology" certainly appears to be part of a larger smear, though the former senator has denied that was his intention.
But in many respects, Santorum's new attack is even more troubling than its face-value ugliness. Since when is it the job of presidential candidates to question others' theology? The Santorum camp later said he was simply referring to the president's worldview, but notice that the Republican candidate used the word "theology" four times in three sentences. Santorum was, in other words, trying to make a specific point.
And that point, apparently, was the notion that Obama is motivated by a religion that is "not ... based on the Bible." Santorum wants to be a president -- and he also wants to be a canonical judge of all things scriptural, which isn't exactly in the Article II job description.
We can take this even further. As the GOP candidate sees it, Obama is driven by "some phony theology," whereas President Santorum would presumably be guided by a real theology (one "based on the Bible"). Perhaps now would be a good time to remind Santorum that the separation of church and state is a principle fundamental to the American system of government. Our leaders take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not one man's interpretation of a holy book.
This is not, in other words, a theocracy. Criticizing a rival for refusing to base his or her governing vision on the appropriate "theology" is wholly at odds not only with First Amendment principles, but with the American tradition itself.
For its part, the Obama camp saw Santorum's latest rhetoric as "well over the line." Under the circumstances, it's hard to disagree.
Leave a Comment:
So first the Right-os demand utmost separation of government influence on religion over contraception (wihch isn't about religion, but health care), and now it is imortant to criticize the President because he does not use the "Christian" religion to influence his policy?
Pot, meet Kettle.
It's interesting that Santorum questions President Obama's theology when it is clear to many of us that Obama's theology is New Testament Christianity .... Sermon On The Mount, love thy neighbor, helping the least among us .... while Rick Santorum seems irrevocably locked into the Old Testament Christianity of Sodom and Gomorrah, homophobia, misogynist, Original Sin and vengeful God.
Part of the issue seems to be that Santorum believes that God created the Earth for the use and pleasure of Man and that the steps that President Obama takes towards preserving the Earth for future generations constitutes an evil "world view."
If he were not a Catholic, I'd think Mr. Santorum was a member of the Puritan party in England in the 1640s, or a member of the King's Anglican army opposing Puritanical heresy!
But all thinking aside,
Mr. Santorum is simply nuts!
Wacko!
An idiot in a sweater vest
who is assailing
and flailing away
into dangerous turf!
Oh, if only God
would save him
from himself! -Kevo
Go back further.
The Inquisition.
try the Witch Trials. and that is what will happen if that Moron gets into office
"I am not a witch"
"BURN HER! BURN HER ANYWAY!!!!!!!"
I've been checking in to Santorum's Catholicism. He belongs to Opus Dei and also Regnum Christi. Regnum Christi is a membership group of consecrated members who are doing God's work on earth. From what I can read, they tell the Pope what they are doing and he goes along with it. The group was started by a Father Maciel, who was, for years, being investigated for pedophilia. And the Pope kept saying, "NO he says he did not do it." He was finally taken out of the Priesthood in 2006, and he died in 2008. This is the group Santorum hangs around with. They don't sell the Bible, they sell a book called "Regnum Christi Handbook." Anybody can google it. So I had thought Santorum was probably from C Street. But he is in a good similar to C Street that believes they are above the law also. Scarey stuff.
I guess I'm wondering exactly why one should be concerned about the "theology" of any President... you know, since we have that part on the Constitution about not establishing religion and all....
We also have the part saying that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States." Santorum, and Republicans generally, speak and act is if there were a religious test, and that a candidate must be a right-wing, fundamentalist Christian in order to pass the test.
Santorum needs to make up his mind as to whether he's running for President, or for Pope.
President or Pope ~ he'll never be either.
I really have to laugh at many of you on this blog. You first accuse criticism over Obama's decision on contraception as being extreme religious extremism. Now, you take the position of defending Obama's religious choices. There are clear divides and no one should question a person's religious choice. The first amendment is clear. Govt should not pass any law infringing on religious freedom. And, no religious test be placed on a candidate.
....well this is the funniest accusation ever, Tom. The problem liberals have w/ the issue of religious freedom is that religious freedom should favor the individual whenever possible over that of the organization if the two are in conflict. That is a big "if." In the case of the Catholic Church: that church was wanting to impose it's religious beliefs onto other people. Which means the Catholic Church wanted the state to enforce it's freedom of religion, but to do so at the detriment of the individuals who also have a right to religious freedom. No liberal wants to see an organization's rights prioritized over an individual's if it can be helped. In the case of the contraception clause of ACA- this is an instance where the church getting it's way infringes upon the rights of the individual. Now that you see the argument in it's correct framing you can then understand why people here have a problem w/ other individual's attempting to enforce their religious liberty onto other people. The only way you can see hypocrisy here is if you didn't understand the argument to begin w/. I hope that I've cleared it up for you.
Here is an article that outlines just how far removed Rick Santorum is from a median American family, despite this assurances that he understands blue collar America:
http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2012/02/rick-santorum-hes-eighteen-of-us.html
I'm guessing Kevin Spacey is looking at the picture at the top of this page and thinking that's his next role.
Which would be awesome!!
I'm a big fan of Kevin Spacey! His acting abilities are skillful beyond scary, very convincing. I'm sure portraying Santorum would be a breeze for him.
The funny thing is Spacey himself is a conservative Republican. I have to imagine he also looks at Santorum and says 'wtf!'
LoL. His political views make no difference to me, as long as he doesn't come to my door quoting some conjured "god-given legal right" to "probe" me. I can only speak for myself.
Your comment about his politics surprised me (given his staunch support for funding the arts), so I checked the google. Seems to me that he's actually a Dem. Loads of money poured into funding Dem candidates in 08, and he professes a huge admiration for Bill Clinton.
On Twitter and Facebook he has repeatedly stated that he's a conservative Republican when he's talking to fans. I follow him on both and he repeats it rather consistently.
....unless it's a joke and I'm a n00b who has been missing it this entire time? o.O
Get an atheist on-stage at a debate and watch how fast the other candidates drop to their knees to praise jesus.
Keep spewing your junk, Santorum. The more you point and say to the public, "He - and 45 million American protestants - aren't real christians, just like the pope denounced all other religions than catholicism as paths to hell, the more divisive, dinosauric, and frankly hateful you look.
EDIT: And with the drop in voter participation in every single state this year and santorum until now, not winning anything with more than 6% turnout, can we please DROP the whole "surging" thing as if there's any actual numerical sweep in the states? He beats another candidate? Great, whatever, but don't act like it's because of record-number of voter-turnout.
Santorum spewing his junk. Funny.
I actually have to addendum my previous opinion. I believe the answer to be much simpler (but more offensive) than what I previously posted.
I believe it's the whole evolution/science vs. creationism debate all over again; and especially playing out in Women's Health currently.
The conservatives cannot run on fact in order to impose their will on the populace but what do they say they have going for them? Religion. So in order to delegitimize an opposing argument, they frame it as a theological debate and that their side is right; essentially they have the correct faith.
Theology as a theoretical debate has no correct side other than, "Well that's what the other side believes," while science is based on fact and testable means.
By framing President Obama's political leanings and governance as a false-theology is not only a dog-whistle to those who still think the President is a Muslim, but it also insinuates that the only way to fight back is to make an argument into a religion and then call it false.
Any religious person should be offended by this tactic.
Funny. Yesterday, Sunday, marked the 70th anniversary of Roosevelt giving the executive order to lock up Japanese-Americans in internment camps; an historical example of the 'fear of the other'' in America.
I've asked this elsewhere but, what do we become when we deny the humanity of others?
what a hypocrite- his wife had an abortion, but other women-never-a sin
I think that technically she didn't have an abortion as the child was born alive and survived a few hours. To me what is interesting are the years (chronicled in a recent Newsweek) that Karen Santorum spent as the live-in girlfriend of an abortion doctor.
Clearly, there is no place in America for a citizen - and especially a president - whose faith (or lack of it) doesn't match Santorum's extreme Opus Dei view of the world. I don't know which is worse: His sanctimonious pronouncements on religion and "morality" or the fact that he is considered a "serious" front-running candidate for his party's presidential nomination.
Gosh, why would Santorum want to start a discussion of "phony theology" and "non-christian theology". Does he have a primary opponent who might be vulnerable to that line of campaigning or something?
Mind if I repeat myselef?...
By the way how is it we allow the right to call the British subjects who came here to escape religious persecution by the Catholic church, founders? The founders of the USA came along a hundred years later. They declared us free of British rule and gave us a constitution that guaranteed no church would have the power given to the Catholic church in Europe. The various bands of exiled religious groups who settled the new world broke apart several times over religious differences as leaders of each community invoked religious mandates others objected to. We are now a mixed bag of religious and non-religious people who enjoy the freedom from church rule.
No civilized democracy bows to the church anymore.Iran does though
the founders of massachuesetts were fleeing from the church of england, not the catholic church.
and, as a history professor of mine once said, they came here not to escape persecution for their religious beliefs, but rather for the right to persecute others for their religious beliefs, viz., roger williams and rhode island, among others.
Paul, at the more local levels, there have been recent moves made within the Church to shift authority and funds up the institutional ladder. Call me paranoid, or hypersensitive, but I hope you will retain the main premise of your thoughts, in case they bear repeating later.
Mellowjohn has a good point. Don't forget, too, that most American colonies actually included prohibitions against atheists or people of different faiths from practicing certain professions or holding office. Other colonies (like Maryland) professed religious tolerance, but you could still be punished by death for refusing to acknowledge the divinity of Jesus. Rhode Island and Pennsylvania (ironically) were among the few colonies who permitted full freedom of religion.
And they brought the witch hunts with them. So glad to know they are making a come back! (sarc)
The Puritans weren't fleeing the Catholic church. They were fleeing the Church of England. The King had required everyone to join his church. The Puritans were actually fleeing the king's liberal church. They wanted the right to return to the more "pure" religion of Catholicism. Hence the name Puritans. The 21st century take on Freedom of Religion is liberal -- we are free to worship as we please. The 17th century version was definitely not liberal -- they wanted to return to their conservative roots.
Thank you all for your correction. Yes the church of england. My head was up my rear I reckon.
Also known as the "Fox News" Pose.
The Church of England was only started because one of the Henrys wanted to divorce his wife, and Catholics wouldn't let him. So he started the Church of England. So its an offshoot of CAtholic, just as Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.
question: when john f kennedy was running, the repubs were soooooooooooo upset that if he became president he would FORCE us all to be catholics. so now we have a true nut job running for president, a catholic, who publicly announced that he will force his catholic beliefs upon us all, and the repubs wrap their arms around this clown...................why? what is the difference?
There's an R behind his name?
what's the difference?
They don't have anyone else to vote for... other than Mitt, but I hear nobody really likes him. Desparation always makes strange bedfellows of people.
I've been wondering the same thing, Jim. But I think the alignment of evangelicals with Catholics on the issue of abortion brought about the change. Mainline protestants, whom Santorum thinks have a wrong theology nowadays because many of them support women's rights, are declining.
Because the Tea Party of the 2000s and the John Birch Society *(aka Koch brother's DAd) have pulled the rug so far to the right, they have run in to the wall. There must be compassionate Conservatives in the GOP but I haven't seen much evidence of it. The moderate Conservatives are keeping their mouths shut, hoping they won't be primaried by the Tea Party next election year. So if the moderates are sitting on the sidelines, the Severely Conservatives are doing and saying what they wish. And the GOP is supposed to believe it. I sometimes wonder how a compassionate conservative sneaks in his vote. Obama is to the right of Eisenhower and Nixon. I fear that we will never be able to pull the rug back to center again.
He is trying to win the Republican nomination. If and when he does that he will tone down his God talk.
At least during the election. Afterwards he will don his papal crown and dictate his religion upon us all to save us from our wicked ways! Confess or suffer the consequences as gitmo yields to the grand inquisitor.
It says democrat on you voter registration. Are you willing to denounce your faith and be washed in the waters of republicanism? If not we will be forced to remove your voting rights and send you to a re-education camp.
With youtube and everyone having a video in their phone, its going to be real hard to go back to center after this primary. I know I'll never believe a word he says if he tries to sound moderate. Gone are the days that people believe what you say today. They can go find what you said last week.
I don't think we should be terribly surprised by the contradictions in Santorum's argument. Recall that much of the GOP Presidential Race has been an attempt to run against an imaginary Obama, one which not only does not exist, but also one whose mythical subject must necessarily exist in order for the GOP to create the appearance of difference and separation.
Well yes but they are now arguing for an imaginary USA founded by Christians for Christians and of Christians. They are no longer content with no Obama but now are entering the twilight zone of the far right religious kooks. They have torn down the wall of separation that served us well. And they did it by claiming religious persecution. Ironic ain't it?
The Christian far right does not believe in the wall of separation of church and state because it is not specifically stated in the Constitution and it is a legal fiction of the SCOTUS. The Christian right believes that the Constitution only forbids the Congress from establishing a national religion and not the states. These purported Christian legal scholars do not believe the 14th Amendment extends the US Bill of Rights to the state governments. In addition, they do not believe the federal government is prohibited from supporting Christianity. The basis for that argument is that the founding fathers were Christians and therefor, their intent was not to bar any government actions that support Christianity in general. These views are based on a literal interpretation of the Constitution. I would note that strict construction of the Constitution is selective by both conservatives and liberals and depends on which issue is being considered. I could go on about these different issues such as the Imperial presidency, the right of privacy, and so on, but there is not enough space and time to devote to each issue.
Most of the Founding Fathers were Diests, NOT Christians. They did not believe in miracles, or that Jesus was G-d.
of U.S. Founding Fathers# of
Founding
Fathers% of
Founding
Fathers
Episcopalian/Anglican
88
54.7%
Presbyterian
30
18.6%
Congregationalist
27
16.8%
Quaker
7
4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed
6
3.7%
Lutheran
5
3.1%
Catholic
3
1.9%
Huguenot
3
1.9%
Unitarian
3
1.9%
Methodist
2
1.2%
Calvinist
1
0.6%
TOTAL
All were "enlightened" men though.Men of reason that knew religious belief can tear apart the nation since religion is incompatible with freedom and liberty for all.
Poor Mr. Santorum just doesn't understand that He's Not God. He doesn't get to Decide what is and what is not Real Theology.
He Really needs Help. Maybe a course of Forced Exposure to some Other faiths - you know, like we all are forced to listen to Him and His Ilk - would do him some good.
I am Sick and Tired of the fundies getting to state the question and define the argument. I don't happen to believe that Life adheres in the Body; where are My Rights to exercise My Faith?
"I'm getting tired of the fundies getting to state the question and define the argument."
My impressions exactly. Just because Obama is the only Democratic candidate, the Repugs and the media seem to be supporting the idea that this is a Republican race only, and our President is on his way out. As usual, R's are dominating the media and if Obama makes decisions about the administration or speaks to the people, then he is just politicking. Like that is a bad thing? The Republican clowns are continuously performing a three ring circus. Where are my rights to exercise my vote and my democratic caucus?
This race has turned into something more akin to science fiction... "War of the Worlds Meets The Body Snatchers".
What? Are they going to start the Inquisition again? If Tehran drops a nuke on Israel and us, it will settle many theological questions.
Not only do these guys not know their history, they have forgotten that really important Commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness..."
Characterizing Obama as the "other" didn't work in '08 and it won't work now. I believe Obama should be and will be judged on his record as president. With the economy improving, Santorum may think going after Obama's record is not a winning strategy. Or maybe pontificating about "values" just comes naturally to the man. His comments are bizarre at best. Just plain crazy at worst.
Hmm. "If the President says he's a Christian, then he's a Christian."
That, right there, is another dog-whistle comment. It appears to be generous, but in fact, most conservative/Evangelical Christians don't believe that a person is an authentic Christian just because s/he says so. In order to be a real Christian, you have to do certain things -- confess that Jesus is your Lord and Savior, accept the inerrancy of the Bible, kowtow to the Vatican, etc. Santorum's meaning is the exact opposite of his words: "The President may say he's a Christian, but he certainly doesn't meet our criteria."
Ironically, Evangelicals would say that Catholics aren't "our kind of Christian." The submission to the Vatican, praying to saints, exaltation of the Virgin Mary, the issue of transubstantiation, etc., all are seen as outside the Biblical faith. The fact that Evangelicals are overlooking their time-honored feud with Catholicism shows the amount of animus that is felt toward President Obama.
Lutherans don't kowtow to the Vatican, never have. Please don't lump all Christians into the same pot.
Lutherans don't kow tow to the Vatican, never have. In fact, it was Martin Luther's realization that you can't buy your way into heaven, which gave him the idea that the Catholic Church was flawed and prompted him post his proclamation in the town square(look it up, not here to teach you religious history). Please don't dump all Christians into the same pot. Ignorance starts wars.
Just in case one of these Republicans can pull this off, the #1 Question I'd like ALL these guys asked by ANY reporter is: "Do you believe this is the End Times?" They are scary enough without having to worry they'll be leading us straight into Armageddon.
Someone has to play the part of the Anti-Christ. Bush tried but failed so a new puppet must be appointed.
Believe it or not , for decades the far right has actually argued that we need the anti-Christ because he must bring the world together . Nobody ever accused these guys of being sane though.
As a reminder to what actually happened, as opposed to Mr. Santorum's revised history/misrepresentation of his statement's intent...
When asked about those statements about "theology" later on Saturday (as opposed to what's been said subsequently, as reported by Steve,) Santorum replied:
"The President's reached a new low in this country's history of oppressing religious freedom that we have never seen before. And, uh, if he doesn't want to call his...imposition of his values a theology, that's fine."
He wasn't talking about "environmental radicalism," or whatever he's claiming this hour, he was dog-whistling to fundamentalists that this President is a "bearer of false witness," a "wolf in sheep's clothing." He's capitalizing on the strategy of the President as "other." And it's despicable.
Is Santorum running for Cardinal of the United States in a 'new order' theocracy, or just for the Presidency?
Since Frothy Mixture questions Obama's religious faith, I question Sanatorium's intellect.
My GF and I had this talk. If we vote for the right were voting for a Theocracy If we Vote Left were voting for Socialism..... Neither wants either. Can we please have a middle person please? As an Independent we have the numbers to make both fars on each side disappear in time. We can only hope one day the rest of the Independents understand that we elect Presidents not the left not the right.
I'm not sure socialism means what you think it means. FTR President Obama is not a left candidate. PBO is a conservative, somewhat authoritarian candidate. Rick Santorum is a far more conservative borderline reactionary and highly authoritarian candidate. The closest thing we have to a socialist in mainstream US politics right now is Senator Bernie Sanders and he isn't running for POTUS. I also don't think Rick Santorum would implement any of the bullcrap he's actually saying. I think he's pulling a Bush right now- he's touting the religious edge in order to work up the right wing and then once he's in office you won't hear or see legislation on those matters again until 2016.
Im talking the handlers for both more than the person.
Do some reading. There are varying degrees of Socialism, and sadly our President is far to the right of Socialism. I would dearly love to see some socialistic rulings in our government. Read and find out what socialism is. Heck, travel to Sweden, Germany, Norway, Finland, UK, even Canada is a little bit socialistic, and they all love their government.
He's crazy,
He wears sweater vests,
He's in complete denial about the world he lives in,
He's upset with anything that doesn't fit into his narrative,
He's an over the top caricature of a religious obsessive,
He's....
He's Ned Flanders!
Rick Santorum is the Evil Ned Flanders,
Dun dun dun!
Ned Flanders: "I wish we lived in a place more like the America of yesteryear that only exists in the brains of us Republicans. "
"Say your prayers, Simpson... Because the schools can't force you like they should!"
The republicans have finally gone so far to the right that they're able to be compared and contrasted with the most over the top caricature parody of themselves to have ever appeared on tv.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFTR2JJcKUg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsmL1mLQLfw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r9RE5J1QeA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMIq_LrWSM4
Enjoy my friend ;-)
He keeps a fetus in a jar of formaldehyde in his house.
Not all Christians kowtow to the Vatican, that would be Catholics. Lutherans don't and if you knew your religious history, you would know that.