The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionSantorum: Theologian-in-Chief?
by Michael Sean Winters on Feb. 20, 2012
Former Sen. Rick Santorum seems to think he is running for theologian-in-chief rather than commander-in-chief. Only a day after a recording of a 2008 speech made headlines - in the speech Santorum said that mainstream Protestantism "fell out" of the world of Christianity, he attacked President Obama's theology for being at odds with the Bible. Of course, anyone of us can think of a dozen or so biblical teachings with which Santorum has some difficulty, from the admonition to care for the immigrant, to the need feed the hungry and clothe the naked, etc.
Santorum is entirely within his rights to argue that his worldview and the president's are different and that those differences may, at some basic level, be rooted in different readings of the Scripture. But, I suspect most voters do not want a political debate to be cast in such explicitly religious terms. Obviously, we religion writers would welcome such a debate for the most selfish of reasons even though we know it probably would not be good for the country. And, as the recent debate over the HHS mandates showed, it is difficult to think that most Americans can have such a serious debate, in which case it would be a war of battling sound bites and bumper stickers. I am all for Americans discussing the role of religion in public life, but I am one thousand percent sure that Mr. Santorum is not the person to start it.
It's sad and embarrassing
It's sad and embarrassing that the two Catholic candidates for president are the two most judgmental in the field.
If, IF, Rick Santorum ever
If, IF, Rick Santorum ever gets close to the Republican nomination for president, I can't wait for the Obama political counter-attack mostly likely to come only after the Republicans have made their choice. When you live in a glass house, and leave so many rocks lying around in your past for your critics to throw at you, Santorum is cruising for a bruising.
Less we forget, Santorum after having been elected twice to the US Senate was DEFEATED by a huge margin by another fellow Catholic, nice-guy Bob Casey. Pennsylvanians who watched Santorum's condescending and hypocritical act for a long time were so ready to ditch Santorum.
Santorum is such a nasty, mean-spirited politician, we could be seeing a Democratic landslide of LBJ-like proportions.
Here is a link to an
Here is a link to an excellent piece of journalism outlining the political and financial shenanigans of the ethics-challenged Santorum, beyond his weird sex obsessions. Yep, the man is crazy... like a crafty fox.
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/will-bunch/rick-santorum-surge_b_1185833.html
.
Santorum also was a speaker at an Opus Dei shindig in Rome in 2002, where he spoke disparagingly of John Kennedy's 1960 speech about separation of church and state, and a Catholic president not taking orders from Rome. Santorum is not only a slick politician and supporter of the Opus Dei cult, he is a true Machiavellian theocrat to his core.
.
Church and State need to be
Church and State need to be separated. And, as for Santorum---I don't wish to claim him as a fellow Catholic. He is crazy. His self-righteousness is apalling.
I appreciate this and agree.
I appreciate this and agree.
As do I, a great-grandmother!
As do I, a great-grandmother! I get so tired of explaining Santorum to people who know I am Catholic. Finally I've just gotten around to explaining that every religion has its fruitcakes, and this one is just nuttier than most.
Santorum is a neo-con who
Santorum is a neo-con who wants to attack Iran, boost Pentagon spending, and pay for all this war, war and more war, with deep cuts to Social Security and Medicate. Since his pelvic theology suits the hierarchy and religious right, he appears to think he is somehow "more moral" than anyone else. The man is a fraud. A Cafeteria Catholic of the worst kind.
Don't forget, he, also, wants
Don't forget, he, also, wants to take all Gov. money out of education. That's public schools, State Universities, etc... Very. Scary. Man.
SANTO SUBITO ST. SANTORUM
SANTO SUBITO ST. SANTORUM ..... An asurd idea, but not if you listen to Rick and watch how the US bishops' pulpit political propaganda is helping Rick's primary campaign.
While Rick pines for the pre-French Revolution era "ancien regime" Church and his main supporter spins a "compressed aspirin" alternative to contaception, the bishops electioneering is helping Rick considerably. The pope and Dolan's snub of Obama last Friday will also mainly redound to Rick's benefit.
For more detail, please read the comment, "Pope Snubs All Americans", readily accessible by clicking on at:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/dolan-denies-rumor-snub-obama-envoy
Please also read the related comment, "Supreme Court Appointees", readily accessible at:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/rating-presidents
Santorum's main fault is that
Santorum's main fault is that he believes in the concept of Christendom, where the bishops can dictate to Catholic public servants, even at the expense of their duty and oath to protect and defend the Constitution over all other things. He may single handedly bring back the Know Nothing movement.
Santorum, whose name is a
Santorum, whose name is a modified Latinization of the Italian 'dei Santi' (of the Saints), is eminently qualified to become America's Theocrat. It would be interesting to know if he espouses such Catholic social teachings as Option for the Poor, Subsidiarity, the Common Good, the Primacy of Conscience, the roll of Government in the Private Sector, and the like. I believe the answer is obvious. Progressive Catholics certainly do not have the exclusive choke hold on Cafeteria Catholicism.
I don't view Santorum's
I don't view Santorum's comments as being judgmental at all. He is merely responding to the barrage of insults thrown at decent people on nearly a daily basis from people who don't have the ability to comprehend a scriptural message if they heard one. He is not forcing his religion on anyone.
I assume by this piece that MSW would prefer the theology of President Obama who thumbs his nose at people of faith and insists that everyone has to comply with his HHS mandate.
Do any of you realize just how close we are to following the exact same model as the Communist Chinese who perform mandatory abortions based solely on gender!
I encourage Santorum's boldness and I pray he will continue to expose the agenda that is destroying our culture.
Andrew K
Finally a voice that doesn't
Finally a voice that doesn't spew hate...Thank you, Andrew K...
Santorum's messages are
Santorum's messages are hate-filled, that's the point.
Clearly as is Andrew K's here
Clearly as is Andrew K's here as he writes, and wrongfully these words:
"I don't view Santorum's comments as being judgmental at all. He is merely responding to the barrage of insults thrown at decent people on nearly a daily basis from people who don't have the ability to comprehend a scriptural message if they heard one. He is not forcing his religion on anyone.
I assume by this piece that MSW would prefer the theology of President Obama who thumbs his nose at people of faith and insists that everyone has to comply with his HHS mandate.
Do any of you realize just how close we are to following the exact same model as the Communist Chinese who perform mandatory abortions based solely on gender!
I encourage Santorum's boldness and I pray he will continue to expose the agenda that is destroying our culture.
Andrew K"
This is nothing but hate-filled and just plain wrong.
=================================================================
Obama on 9-11: "May God bless the memory of those we lost"
By Lynn Sweet on September 12, 2011 6:59 AM | No Comments
WASHINGTON--At the last of a long day of memorials Sunday marking the tenth anniversary of the 9-11 terrorist attacks, President Obama noted lives lost in New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, Iraq and Afghanistan: "May God bless the memory of those we lost, may God bless the United States of America."
Andres, I am dumbfounded at
Andres, I am dumbfounded at your egregious accusations against President Obama.
How in the world can you claim that Obama is "thumbing his nose" at people of faith when he IMMEDIATELY removed all possibility of the new HHS rule requiring
the health insurance policies provided by Catholic institutions to, themselves,
provide AND PAY FOR contraceptive services by amending the exceptions to that rule so that they are no longer required to do that. That sounds far more respectful of the moral positions of people of faith than statements like yours are respectful of the President's position.
And what's this about the Chinese performing mandatory abortions based on gender? That's not what I have heard. My info is that the Chinese government
has a "one child" rule for all married couples and that the couples themselves are opting to abort female babies because the cultural value is that sons are so much preferred to daughters.
A 30-something former student of mine called me last night to tell me that she had learned from the sermon at the Mass she attended yesterday that Obama is trying to force Catholics to have abortions. Is that the next charge in this Republican campaign of lies about the President?
J.H. what rock are you
J.H. what rock are you living under? Havn't you been reading any of the NCR articles. The accomodation is not a resolution to the HHS mandate! It is merely forcing the same mandate on a different entity which solves nothing!
My comments regarding Obama isn't a personal attack. They are meant to expose his policies for what they are, an assault on religious freedom.
Andrew K
Actually, Andrew, while I'm
Actually, Andrew, while I'm not J.H. I have been reading the NCR articles and comments. No offense meant but the conclusion I've drawn is that most posters at NCR don't seem to have a problem with the actions taken by President Obama. Further, a review over the weekend of other sources covering this issue leads me to believe, with the exception of right-wing sites (and the rather desperate article by Glenn Beck on the Washington Post site-which on the whole was dissed by the commenters) that Americans in general (and Catholic Americans in specific) seem to approve of the solution.
And yes, it solves the problem unless your goal is to make contraceptives illegal or unavailable. If that is the goal, then you're going to lose. Availability of contraceptives, without co-pays is, from what I can tell, the will of the people.
Bob
Bob, I appreciate your points
Bob,
I appreciate your points and they are good ones. When I read a lot of the columns and responders on this site I get the clear impression nobody really understands the Bill of Rights or if they understand it, they purposely ignore its meaning as long as their progressive agenda is advancing.
The Church's position is not to make contraception illegal. These services have been around for years and no body has stopped anyone from accessing them. All the church is saying is the Govt doesn't have the right or the authority to make the Church pay for it, either directly or indirectly through insurance mandates. If someone wants to get contraception or the pill, or morning after pill and they happen to be employed by a Catholic hospital or University or something, then they have to pay for it themself.
Andrew K
Can we say
Can we say -----incrementalism"----, Andrew ?? As in a step-by-step denial of access to contraception? The hierarchy is indeed speaking out of both sides of its mouth as we speak!
Hell has --no fury-- like bishops and the Vatican who have been scorned, particularly since 1968 at the inception of HV.
This is no small deal and the obsession of power and control, particularly over women's reproductive capacities knows no bounds within the ecclesiastical halls of men who presume and assume power over others.
In fact, imo, Dolan has yet to recover from his loss of the gay-marriage issue in NY. And I have to wonder about his zeal in this whole so-called mandate issue to begin with, as he trumpets his leadership of the pack.
The main ingredients here are the fact that we are in an election year and this pre-conceived plan has as its motive the removal of President Obama from office. Second, by going through a side door, the hierarchy can now verbalize their pent up rage over contraception and the fact that Catholic women have taken matters into their own hands. That side door includes attacks on HHS as well as President Obama.
People all over the country are attuned to what's going on here. And that will absolutely manifest itself in the voting booth in November.
Andrew, The only folks
Andrew, The only folks trying to force their religion on everyone else are the culture warriors themselves — who, like yourself, are so very certain of their exclusive capital-T religious truth. The evidence of that is in the legislation being passed at both federal and state levels by culture war elected officials once they gain majority, specifically targeting women of child-bearing age, their bodily autonomy, and their freedom of religious conscience, ...and the civil rights and freedom of conscience for people of homosexual orientation. It's the religious culture warriors who have control issues, wanting to create a homogenized society of theocrats like themselves.
.
Santorum is blatantly running on a campaign platform of religion (his version) and truly bizarre notions of human sexuality. The man is morbidly obsessed with sex, specifically with what other people might be doing. He has promised that as "preacher in chief" he will do all he can to impose his moral beliefs on the nation. Perhaps you dozed through those speeches... or perhaps you happen to agree with his desired theocracy and weird obsessions.
.
Our secular government has NO obligation to pander endlessly to the Religious Right and the USCCB. They get too much accommodation already. Get over it.
.
AileenUSA - well said!
AileenUSA - well said!
I agree. Very well said and
I agree. Very well said and thank you.
Andrew, your comments are a
Andrew, your comments are a personal attack, and wrong.
=========================================================
Obama on 9-11: "May God bless the memory of those we lost"
By Lynn Sweet on September 12, 2011 6:59 AM | No Comments
WASHINGTON--At the last of a long day of memorials Sunday marking the tenth anniversary of the 9-11 terrorist attacks, President Obama noted lives lost in New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, Iraq and Afghanistan: "May God bless the memory of those we lost, may God bless the United States of America."
Andrew I don't think that
Andrew I don't think that Obama is attacking religious freedom at all. He is trying to respect both the conscience of the institution as well as the conscience of the individual. This is not an easy thing to do and given how the mandate is now structured, I think he has achieved that.
It is my belief that many of us, including, most of our bishops, need to realize that religious freedom is not religious dominance, which, to me, is what they are really trying to establish. To have religious freedom there must be consideration of religious liberties of those who believe differently. With the statements and positions of the bishops on this issue, as well as other issues, I don't get the sense that true religious freedom is, actually, a consideration for them.
Peace of Christ,
John David
John, Nobody from the
John,
Nobody from the Bishop's camp is forcing anyone to follow the Church's teachings, so it is clearly not an issue of religious dominance. The Bishops have merely stated their objections based on their interpretation of Scripture, which is their right under the Constitution, and they don't want to be pulled into the HHS mandate and have to pay for something they find offensive.
The accommodation forces insurance companies to cover the costs which indirectly compels the Church to pay for it which also violates their right to exercise their religion. This issue spills over into private businesses, Jewish organizations, Muslims, etc. as well as you and I.
The compromise simply re-directs the mandate to insurance companies who will have to cover those costs through premiums or subsidies or something. If we allow this to stand, what next? The government will have the lattitude to compel any organization to comply with whatever they want if this is not stopped. When this occurs, we will have nothing short of tyranny.
Andrew K.
Well Andrew we do agree that
Well Andrew we do agree that the compromise re-directs the mandate to insurance companies. As I have mentioned in other posts, I was immediately and strongly opposed to how the Obama administration orginally handled this situation. I am now satisfied and think that this compromise is showing respect for the Church's position, yet also shows respect for the conscience of the individual.
Andrew we cannot live without some govt. regulations. I'm sure I can name many areas where I would think that you would support govt. regulations and I think that it does not help the discourse to call every govt. regulation and intervention, "Tyrany" or "socialism". I just don't think that is true. I also think that it would be prudent to consider if one is pointing out the speck in the other eye while ignoring the log in one's own, as the present day GOP does frighten me in this very area.
Andrew, please forgive me if I am getting too personal, but I ask that you be careful of the alure of certainity, as it can be very dangerous and do a great deal of damage, not just to others, but to oneself as well. Also be careful of being so sure of the rightiousness of one side and the evil of the other. It will close down you mind, harden your heart and choke your very soul.
I'm not asking that you abandon your leanings, but your posts are getting to be more and more of that of an alarmist; always seeing each issue with outrage and hysteria. And keep in mind that extremists never see themselves as such, they all see themselves as "prophets". We all need to reconize the enemy within. If we don't we will surly project it onto others.
Again, forgive me if I have been too intrusive in expressing my concern.
Yours in Christ,
John David
John, I am very concerned and
John,
I am very concerned and I can't understand why others aren't equally as concerned. Again, the issue that concerns me is this unqualified authority by our government requiring a religious organization to go against its moral tenants - or else! That is unprecedented and troubling to me and unlike any regulation that I know of.
Your comment that we must have regulations to live is not quite in the same vane as being told that your convictions are irrelevant under the new healthcare plan. I understand where you are coming from and I appreciate your views John. I know we are on different ends of the spectrum, and I assure you I am not poking my finger in anyone's eye. I write my comments with honesty and I hope to present a different side of things; a side which I believe might be meaningful to someone who is jaded by the extreme left whom I believe are actively working to discredit Christianity and many of the values that represent goodness in our culture. I know I am fighting against the current on this NCR web site. I haven't read one conservative article on NCR in nearly 6-months and I don't expect to read one any time soon. A genuine conservative would never be considered in NCR. Every once in a while I get an encouraging word from a blogger but its rare. Stand up for your beliefs. :)
Peace to you John.
Andrew K.
It is interesting to me that
It is interesting to me that you are frightened of the Left doing what I see the Right as doing. Also, I am not quite sure that I am as completely on the other side of the spectrum as you may think I am. Keep in mind that we are not only encouraged to lable others quickly, without allowing any nuance, we also tend to think that we need to be consistantly on one side and not the other. As, I mentioned I was troubled - very troubled by the original requirment that the Obama administration was demanding of The Church, so I tended to be with those on the Right then, now I am at peace with the compromis, as I see it as honoring both the moral beliefs of the Church as well as that of the individual.
Andrew, I do not have a problem with a publication (Right or Left) consistantly representing a certain point of view as long as they are honest in presenting themselves as a Right or Right of center; Left or Left of center publication. I think that the NCR does not shy away from being consided a Left or Left of center publication. I would ask you if you are as vigilant and upset at any media outlet; be it television, newspaper or magazine that, pretty much, only gives a Right or Right leaning perspective. Do you demand of these publications more representation of a left leaning perspective?
Still,I would be very concerned if any one of these media outlets, including Left-leaning ones, that began to promote lies (one example; clipping quotes to make it appear as if the person is saying something that they clearly are not). One can be both partisan and honest, but it is very difficult, as there are too many temptations to ignore any facts that do not support your positon and grab any and everything that paints the other side in an unflattering way.
Keep in mind that the Democrats who established the Fairness doctrine and it was the Republicans who got rid of it. It was the Dems who placed regulations so that any media market would have access to differently owned news outlets and it was the Republicans who eliminated this regulations. Given that, I have to ask which party do you see as working to protect the essential ingredient of any democracy - an informed public?
Andrew, I know my nature is Left leaning and I do think that most of us are, by nature, either left leaning or Right leaning. But no matter what we are, I think that if we cannot recognize that the other side does have some points that are of value and in some times and circumstances are, actually, right, we are digging ourselves into a hole and may very well drag everyone else into that hole just so we don't have to give any credit/value to the other side (I have a suspicsion that there are too many who will allow earthquakes and tsunamis rather than have to admit that Al Gore may be right. That is what hate and shooting the messenger can do. The message gets too wrapped up with the individual. That is why the campaigns to hate Obama or Polosi is so effective with so many and why the Right invests so much in promoting hate for these people. They may wrap this hate in something else, but I am convince that those who are making decisions in the GOP - Fox News are, knowingly promoting hate).
What I truly fear is that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh has natured a base that has no tolarence for any movement to the Left; that any movement to the left is an act of war and that any govt. regulation is hysterically exergated as "socialism". Yes if someone is against the Affordable Health Care act, I wil listen, but if they are talking about or not williing to call out the non-existant "death panles", how can I have a good, welcomed conversation about different points of view of the role of govt. The same is true with the Frank Luntz tested sound-bites of "govt. take-over" or "socialism". How can something be "socialism" or "govt. take over" when it is not, nor ever has been a single payer system - not even having public option.
Andrew, I don't know from whom you get your information, but my suggestion; one of which I live by, by-the-way, is that if someone is trying to rile me up, no matter how much I agree with them, they will do great harm to my intellectual as well as spiritual life and I am very much on guard with them and, often, won't even listen to them (there are pundits on the Left, but there is no Fox News equivalent or a Rush Limbaugh).
Andrew, it is not that I think that these people are only dangerous to those on the Left, I think that they are dangerous to those on the Right. They are very, very powerful and too many, actually, that they are presenting solid arguments, which too often, they are not (there can be solid arguments that end up coming to different conclusions; something which may be difficult for any ideologe or partisan to live with).
Well, I've gone on a bit here, I know. I just hope that in any of my concerns or critizism I have not be paternizing or disrespectful. If I have, please accept my sincere apology.
Yours in Christ, my friend
John David
Andrew, whenever I read a
Andrew, whenever I read a post of mine, I always notice some errors in spelling, grammar or clarity. Yet, this post has more violations than my usual ones, as I was rushed to finish. My apologies.
John David
John I think what you are
John
I think what you are describing is felt on both sides at various degrees, it certainly is with me; the question I ask is who can you really trust. Who is telling the truth.
Like I wrote in prior posts, the right has a lot of faults, especially the radical fringe right. But the right aren't the ones dismantling the Constitution, they aren't trying to redefine marriage, they aren't the ones policing children's lunches in school cafeterias or taking down the ten commandments in court houses or destroying private property. I'm trying very hard to protect what I think is good in America and I'm trying to find the good in everyone "with no exceptions"! Trust your instincts John and defend what you believe is the truth. In the end "truth" will prevail.
Peace friend.
Andrew K
Andrew, I agree that it is a
Andrew, I agree that it is a question of who one can trust and it seems that we trust different people. I don't see the left as dismantling the Constitution, as I see the Right being more of a threat of doing that. I don't think they are respecting the seperation of Church and state. Most feel that it is not the courts to decide Constitutional issues, but rather it is up for a vote. Rep. Bachmann even thinks Congress can decide equal protection issues. This is a bit bizzar to me, as I strongly feel it our democracy is designed in a way that makes the courts the final arbiter of these issues. To think otherwise, I believe, is dismentaling the Consitution.
I know that, for some, every court decision that is not in line with their ideology will be dismissed as "judicial activism". Yes, there are some activist Judges, but they represent both sides of the political spectrum. There are also different interpertations to the Constitution and because one has a different interpetation, it does not mean that they are "dismantling" it. But respect and tolerance for another perspective just does not seem to be in fashion these days.
Andrew, I understand that you feel differently, but I support Marriage equality, as I believe that this is an equal protection issue that is for the courts to decide. I don't think that the Church can expect that the govt. cannot tell them what to do, but then feel that they can tell the govt. what to do (separation of Church and State goes both ways). There is the issue of religious freedom of many gays and lesbians and others whose religious beliefs are different than conservatives denominations. I strongly support, as both a citizen as well as a Christan, the rights of the minority. And I thank God that we have the Constitution and, yes, the courts to protect the rights of a minority.
I'm not sure of what you are referring when you say "taking down the 10 Commandments". By this are you referring to the removal of the 10 commandments in public areas? If so, again, I don't have a problem with it, as I think that there are more humble, more effective ways that we, as Christians, can demostrate to society, as a whole, the value of these guidelines.
"Policing school cafeteries", I'm not sure to what you are referring, but am assuming that it is about nutrition issues. If so, I am glad that there is some oversight to ensure that childern have a healthy and balance diet and I don't have an issue with the Government's involvement and would be interested in hearing why it is a problem for some. Sometimes when I hear about what some object to, it seems to me to be grabing anything and everything. Even if one disagrees with this, is it really an issue worth rage? But, as I mentioned in my last post, there are pundits that think anything that is different from what they think is an act of war and should be greeted with rage.
Andrew, for me, I have seen so many in the GOP use the name of Christ and constantly reference Christianity, but, by my understanding of Christ's message is, not live by its dictates and, for you, it seems to be the other way around. I just don't see the love of Christ in so many who use his name and then, I often, see his love in so many who don't or are more reluctant to.
I am always a bit cautious of those who wear their faith on their sleeves; of those who have no doubt. My sense has been that their certainity may be a way of compensenting for their doubt or to deflect away from how they live their life in other ways (deflect, even, from themselves). The love they tend to speak of as God's always seem, to me, so brutal; so much a projection of their own undevelopment. I realize that this is not always the case, but the Christianity of so much of today's GOP is just so ugle to me, so unchristian.
Andrew, clearly I may be wrong in full or in part, as we all can be when we make these evaluations, but that is how I see the present GOP. I just can't support such a party, even if find vallue in so much that is good about so many conservative values.
I have had disappoinments with Obama, but always come back to a basic respect for him as President, his reaching out to work with Repubicans and, even more, as a man. I feel that his and my sense of what it means to be a Christian are more siminlar than the other candidates (and for all of his personal failings, I felt the same way about Clinton).
I understand that you see things much differently, Andrew. Yet, this is my journey and where I am at this point. I will continue to pray that it is the Holy Spirit guiding my journey as much as I will pray that it is the same spirit that guides yours.
Yours in Christ,
John David
I know what you are saying.
I know what you are saying. There is a lot of junk on both sides. When I read that you feel it's the Republicans who are threatening the Consitution I cringe. I don't see the evidence to support that claim.
I believe marriage is a Covenant between one man, one woman, and God - originating from the Old Testament which comes from the Covenant God made with Israel; and the New Testament when Jesus established the Church of His believers. It is something you don't want to mess around with in my view. Two men or two women can not possible co-exist in a Covenant relationship. There is no Biblical precident for it. If you feel it can be defined differently then that is a logic that I don't possess. I still respect you as a brother in Christ.
Blessings to you.
Andrew K
It isn't an attack on
It isn't an attack on religious freedom at all, but it promotes choice.
As in, if your religios beliefs says you shouldn't be using contraceptives, don't buy them.
Just because your health insurance covers them doesn't mean you have to go out and get them. I'm pretty sure our respective health insurance programs cover lots of things we don't use on a regular basis.
I agree! I don't have a
I agree! I don't have a problem with what you wrote. But if I'm an employer, you can't force me to pay for it! If an employee wants birth control let them get it on their dime not mine. It's there conscience that has to be reconciled with God, not mine.
Andrew K
And yet, if you bother to
And yet, if you bother to look, the ruling that was entered into the Federal Register is the exact ruling that was originally made by Sebelius. So for all Obama's rhetoric (and your repeating of his comments), there is no compromise. Only the promise that there may be a compromise in the future.
And regarding the abortions based on gender: both CBS and NBC nightly news have run stories on subject. Simply google "100 million missing women". The basic story is that based on current population numbers, there should be 100 million more women in the world than there currently are. Where the populations normally have roughly 101 or 102 males for every 100 females, in both China and India the ratio is now approaching 125 males for every 100 females. There are two reasons--in China, due to the 1-child policy, families are having tests done to determine the gender of the child and aborting the females. Since they can only have 1 child, they want a male to carry on the family name. In India, the same thing is going on but for a different reason. There, the dowry expected for a female to marry is so expensive that families are aborting the females in order to avoid the major expense. Apparently the issue is so severe that NBC showed a village in the report where the where NO women for the young men to marry.
And what is more troubling is that this practice is spreading to western Europe--and of course has been hinted at in the African American communities in the U.S. Ironic, isn't it? That the procedure women have decided is the instrument of their liberation is reducing their worldwide numbers. They are being aborted to a greater minority position than they have ever been. And there in the middle--providing the tests determining gender and then performing abortions--is International Planned Parenthood with their fists full of money.
And yet - nowhere do your
And yet - nowhere do your sources state or imply that the Chinese gov't is FORCING those abortions. No one denied that they were happening, just that the chinese govt was forcing them.
Maybe you should consider why
Maybe you should consider why it is that boys are valued over girls. If women were treated equally, they would have the same value to their families as boys, but since they are not, they become a liability. Correct the way the world treats women and see a reduction in the preference for boys.
Amen J.H! You took the words
Amen J.H! You took the words right out of my mouth.
Andrew your comment "Do any
Andrew your comment "Do any of you realize just how close we are to following the exact same model as the Communist Chinese who perform mandatory abortions based solely on gender!" Do you realize the govt of VA now wants to vaginally violate (rape in my book) a women without her concent to give her a transvaginal ultrasound..." So get off your sanctimonius high horse and you and your church stay out of my mother's, my sister's, and my female friend's vagina. Thanks so much...
Sir, I must correct you. The
Sir, I must correct you. The Chinese do NOT perform "mandatory" abortions based on gender. They penalize people for having too many children and many families prize the carrying on of the "family name", thus prefering boys. This is why you see so many Chinese girls in orphanages, up for adoption. You are likely thinking of is the Ceausescu regime in Communist Romania which, any Romanian will tell you isn't even in the same stratosphere as our country. It is important to deal in facts, not rhetoric or slander. Those things are what is destroying the fabric of our country.
Andrew K. You are woefully
Andrew K. You are woefully uninformed about the Chinese. They have a law that a couple may have only one child. If there is an abortion , it is not the government that decides it on the basis of the gender of the fetus, but the parents . In China a boy is much preferred over a girl ( why I have never been able to figure out), so therefore if an abortion is performed purely because of the sex of the child, it is the parents choice.
Have a discussion about the
Have a discussion about the merits of China's one child policy is beyond embarrassing.
If you think Senator Santorum
If you think Senator Santorum is looking out for you or anybody else, you need to do a little more research other than Fox News. Even his Charity gives to his close, personal friends. The Senator is not a priest or the Pope. We need to keep the separation of Church and State.
Message to Santorum: Judge
Message to Santorum: Judge not for ye shall be judged.
Best Catholic perspective on
Best Catholic perspective on the HHS decision and Rick Sanctimonious I have seen yet:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/408347/february-1...
"He is not forcing his
"He is not forcing his religion on anyone."
Do you remember the Terri Schiavo case where he was instrumental in denying her husband his marital rights? Or his participation in the K Street Project? In both these instances, he was forcing not Christianity but his own religion on everyone. He tends to be a bit fanatical.
Paz y Bien, Rolando, SFO.
I respect a man who believes
I respect a man who believes in the goodness of all people and recognizes the existance of God, and directs his own life around these principles. I believe Santorum is that type of a man.
I do not respect a man who can't articulate a single cohesive Christian thought or idea and who is guided by the popular trend of society. I believe Barack Obama is that type of a person.
Andrew K
Andrew, So you are hoping to
Andrew,
So you are hoping to live under a theocracy I suppose?
No, Andrew, Santorum is that
No, Andrew, Santorum is that kind of person! He is "articulating" a very narrow brand of fundamentalism that is antithetical to Catholicsm - and then accuses the President of that of which Rick is so very guilty.
If you think that what Rick is spouting is Catholicsim, then you need to go back to the books.
I hope Santorum is the Republican candidate for POTUS. He is nuttier than Gingrich. That will ensure a shoo-in for the current President.
Your boy Santorum wants to
Your boy Santorum wants to throw the poor under the bus and have more tax cuts for the rich. Do you think this "holy man" has ever bothered to read the actual Gospels, especially Matthew 25? I doubt it. Santorum is a fraud.
By the way, he seems rather obsessed with gay marriage. He talks way too much about it, like it is his main focus. You wonder where he is coming from.
President Barack Obama has
President Barack Obama has cohesively articulated his thoughts about our national financial and economic practices, on military policies, on environmental concerns, on issues of health, housing and education, on immigration and on the future of our country. He has done so as the elected representative of all citizens, Christian and non-Christian. He is a principled Christian and respects Christian social theory and teaching. He administration is guided by our Constitution. He also is aware of the words of Jesus Christ, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Mark 12:17)
He is an honorable man and deserves our respect. We can express our approval or disapproval by our vote.
Paz y Bien, Rolando, SFO.
then Andrew, you believe
then Andrew, you believe wrong.
=====================================
Obama on 9-11: "May God bless the memory of those we lost"
By Lynn Sweet on September 12, 2011 6:59 AM | No Comments
WASHINGTON--At the last of a long day of memorials Sunday marking the tenth anniversary of the 9-11 terrorist attacks, President Obama noted lives lost in New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, Iraq and Afghanistan: "May God bless the memory of those we lost, may God bless the United States of America."
Agree.
Agree.
As a man Santorium can
As a man Santorium can partially reflect on the Catholic faith - he forgets however, the teachings about just war, torture, preference for the poor, being non-judgemental. But he does wear the little feet, so I guess all is forgiven. I have seen no evidence that Santorum directs his life around the goodness of all people. I have seen ample evidence that when it is convenient he will support what he espouses not to support (Arlen Spector springs to mind).
As far as Mr. Obama articulating a cohesive Christian thought - an interesting comment, because I have yet to hear a single cohesive Christian thought uttered by any President. THe President is not Christian in Chief he is Commander in Chief, he is president of a country that has multiple religions and not all are Christian. i would be most distressed if any President attempted to foist Christianity onto the this country.
yes, actually, he is.
yes, actually, he is.
Michael Schiavo ordered that
Michael Schiavo ordered that the feeding tube be removed from his wife so she would starve to death, which she did. This is not the Church's definition of "marital rights."
When her husband decided to
When her husband decided to stop the life support to his wife, Terri Schiavo was already “brain dead.” The diagnostic team had agreed that there was severe cerebral atrophy. There was “absence of voluntary action” and “inability to communicate or interact purposefully.” After the autopsy, the Chief Medical Examiner declared that the damage was “irreversable, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons.”
Rick Santorum took up the case when it was suggested that the Schiavo case offered “a great political issue” that would appeal to the Republican Party’s base and could be used against Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat from Florida.
Not only did his in-laws have no right to interfere in Michael and Terri Schiavo’s marriage, neither did Santorum nor then President Bush nor the Congressional Republicans who pushed through legislation to overrule existing directives.
Stopping the life support did not starve Terri Schiavo to death. It allowed her life to take its natural course. It was a difficult choice, but the Sacrament of Matrimony makes the lives of two people one. Her husband made his decision based on what he knew about his wife’s desires and wishes. That is not only a marital right, it is a marital duty as well.
It was Rick Santorum and his supporters who violated the Sacrament of Matrimony.
Paz y Bien, Rolando, SFO.
I didn't know that finishing
I didn't know that finishing off one's spouse was a part of marital rights.
Keep that in mind as Newt
Keep that in mind as Newt Gingrich continues his campaign for the presidency.
Paz y Bien, Rolando, SFO.
Everyone wants to be a
Everyone wants to be a theologian.
Nora O'Donnell, a CBS political correspondent, said yesterday on FACE THE NATION that "theology is the study of religion." Actually, theology is the "science of God". McBrian follows up on this and defines theology as "any scientific or methodological attempt to understand and interpret divine revelation mediated through the data of Scripture and tradition." O'Donnell could have been more precise and it would have been easier to comment, to shed light, on Santorum's statement.
For Santorum to question Obama's theology in relation to the use natural resources is rather weird, but for people who think theologically, this was very interesting. Our Catholicism and care for the earth ought to inform our political ideology.
Bob Shieffer really interrogated Santorum who "clarified" his crack about Obama's theology by saying he was questioning Obama's "world view". Santorum then went on to talk about use of the world's resources in the opposite way of a Catholic understanding of care for the earth. So I question Santorum's world view and theology. He may be anti-abortion but his environmental attitude is not pro-life.
So if Catholics want to consider Obama's "theology" as how he approaches "care for the earth" I think Obama is actually more Catholic than Santorum us in this instance.
You can watch or read a transcript of yesterday's FACE THE NATION here: http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/ftn/main3460.shtml
Santorum is a Republican and therefore always pro-corporate. He talks about stewardship of the earth but what he means is unregulated exploitation. You cannot have massive profits through unregulated exploitation of the earth's resources. Stewardship means taking responsibility for the earth that supports human life and well-being for the world, not just the USA.
I think Santorum is dangerous in the overall look of things. I question HIS theology because whatever it is, it is not consistent with Catholic teaching.
OK, neither is Obama's completely consistent with a Catholic world view but neither does he claim to be a Catholic. But here we are talking about Santorum who loudly defines himself as a Catholic.
I want a pro-life Catholic candidate not just an anti-abortion candidate.
Thinking Catholics will get it.
Santorum's statement is interesting because if Catholic theology is supposed to inform HIS worldview, he's got a lot of catching up to do.
I am so tired of politicians who say they are Catholic but cannot pull their beliefs and behavior together.
Is being a politician and a disciple even possible? Would that it be so.
Pensive, Actually, theology
Pensive,
Actually, theology is "faith seeking understanding". It is no more a 'science" than creationism/intelligent design is.
Is Santorum a dominionist?
Is Santorum a dominionist? There is something very unsettling about his rise in the polls and his financial backers. I am convinced that the dominionists will not let Romney be the nominee. This election will be a very important one for the country. Do not buy into this manufactured religious persecution controversy. The dominionists are the ones who will take away religious freedom.
Given his connections with K
Given his connections with K Street I'd say Ricky is a dominionist in uber lay Catholic clothing. The man is very deceptive.
Thank you for this, Mr.
Thank you for this, Mr. Winters. Although I realize that an extremist like Rick Santorum is unlikely to win the general election, I am moved and grateful that you would spend a moment to criticize Santorum's wholesale attack against mainline Protestantism. Attacks against Mitt Romney's faith probably facilitated the downhill slide in rhetoric. Nevertheless, I am aghast that hate speech such as Santorum's receives so little attention. (Yes, Santorum's verbal blows against Obama's faith are part of the overall assault and have been analyzed in the media, but few journalists seem willing to look at Santorum's blatant, generalized attack against all of mainline Protestantism.) For those who fear a return of the Know-Nothings, I cringe with shame at the anti-Catholicism of which mainline Protestants were certainly guilty in the past. At the same time, let me assure you that such anti-Catholicism will not emerge today from among mainline Protestants. First, such bigotry has been strongly, consistently condemned within all denominations for many decades. Secondly, mainline Protestants are no longer the Establishment. They are a minority without much clout, although it is true they remain over-represented in Congress. Anti-Protestant bigotry never received notice in the past simply because Protestants were more privileged and thus did not pay much of a price for such prejudice. Indeed, in relation to Catholics, mainline Protestants today do not really possess socioeconomic privilege. I would add that most mainline Protestants stand firm in their commitment to social justice and equality for all.
Santorum ignoramus est. This
Santorum ignoramus est.
This hateful demagogue is one of the worst examples of Christianity in public life I have seen since in many years. A person like Mr Santorum can only underscore the absolute necessity of the separation of Church and State. I can only hope people see how far he falls from the core of Catholic teachings and every pope since Blessed John XXIII. If his memory is short,
H.H. Benedict XVI has eloquently reiterated the Gospel of Christ in about all of his letters,papers,and homilies. If his time cannot be given to this, if he owns a Bible, he needs to, perhaps for the first time, read the Gospels.
"For it is the God who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ." (2 Cor 4:6 [RSV])
Let us pray for that light to shine on the hard of heart.
If the Republicans want to
If the Republicans want to run on an anti-contraception banner, then I would not be surprised if the Democrats targeted all 435 seats in the House of Representatives.
It does not make any difference what I think about the morality of contraception. To run on this issue is to face defeat. Dumb!
A man who, for years, has
A man who, for years, has insisted that he is a faithful follower of the Catholic Church's teachings when he has, and continually dissents from Churh teachings to now tell us what is and what isn't "Christian" governing is a further step as to the dullisions of Rick Santorum. This is a man who is too sure of his certainity and to be so sure of one's certainity, usually, results in a rigidness, no debate and no consideration of the rights of others.
It is easier to take seriously someone who, when dissenting with Church teachings, dmits it, than someone who disents and then is quick to point a finger at others.
When Mr. Santorum can begin to be honest about his beliefs and his relationship to the Church, then he may have the beginings of the humility that I think he seems to now believe he has.
John David
A dozen or so? Really? Try
A dozen or so? Really? Try nearly 300 verses that directly contradict the teachings of would be Pope Santorum and Dolan! I challenge anyone to provide a serious case for the conservatism, based in Catholic Teachings, of either Santorum or Dolan. They prostitute the Catholic Church in favor of their holy Republican Party.
An assault on religious
An assault on religious freedom is forcing someone with differing views than your to accept your own. The President's plan does not force the Roman Church or any other to change its doctrines or dogmas. It also does not force someone to convert to their employers faith. When it is reported that 98% of American Catholics practice birth control, it is clear as to who is painfully out of touch. I did not vote for the President to be my religious leader, I have bishops to fill that task. But, from what I have read and heard, Mr Obama understands Jesus' message a lot more clearly than Mr Santorum. Mr Santorum's view of a theocracy differs little from what we have observed in places like Iran.
Post new comment