Bizarre, Constitutional Law, Politics, Religion

My Crucifix Is Bigger Than Yours: Santorum Charges President’s Agenda Springs From A”Phony Theology”

By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

Fresh off an attack on the legitimacy of public education and now surging in the polls, Republican primary candidate Rick Santorum couldn’t hold back the religious zeal.  President Obama’s agenda  is motivated by things not quite Christian the former senator from Pennsylvania charged in a recent campaign stop in Ohio.“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.” My, my, what could the homeschooling Roman Catholic mean? Surely not the Big Lie that the President is a Muslim, an idea that served as the red meat of Tea Party attack dogs  since Obama won the White House. No, perish the thought. The darling of the far right simply meant that the President was “imposing his values on the church, and I think that’s wrong.”  Sure, just a philosophical and scholarly difference  of opinion on health care policy and the First Amendment, coincidentally stuck smack down in the middle of a presidential campaign. Santorum even generously conceded that –wink, wink,– “if the president says he’s a Christian, he’s a Christian.” 

Like a good limbo dance, one wonders how low Santorum can go in bending over backwards to appease the unappeasable right-wing fundamentalist base, and, in this year’s Republican race to the bottom campaign, that’s saying something. We thought “Idea Man” Newt  Gingrich was the show stopper with his kids janitorial corps, but we then looked on wide-eyed as Constitutional scholar, Rick Perry, revealed to us that everything from public schools to Medicare is unconstitutional in his book. Couple that with his call for Texas Secession and we thought we’d seen everything. Not hardly, we now have Rick Santorum, whose presidential campaign is beginning to look like a papal conclave. All that’s missing is some shiny red satin beanies and the “smoke watch” parties around  the Sistine Chapel’s chimney. 

You would think that a guy with both an undergrad and law degree from Penn State could find a copy of  the Constitution or maybe just a book on Thomas Jefferson. Apparently, they are as scarce around Happy Valley as babysitting jobs for former Penn State coach and accused child molester, Jerry Sandusky.  Let me help out.  Article IV, Paragraph three  of the U.S. Constitution provides that:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
 Seems clear enough, but in the tribalized world of the Christian far right, there is only one supreme document and it’s publisher started His presses in the First Century. In that world view, there is only one authentic theology and that’s the one that should be directing all governmental processes.  Think that’s fear mongering. Take a look at this video at about 4:55:
 
 Note the falling all over themselves to “out-Christian” the next guy or gal.  The intention seems clear enough. Law must serve the Christian religion or it is phony law. That is precisely what Santorum is saying through the code-speak that every fundamentalist knows. His attack on Obama is made for the same reason he attacks public education: It smacks of the secular and that is something the mindlessly faithful can neither fathom nor accept.  And make no mistake about it, this is something quite new in our history. While religious zealotry got off the Mayflower with the Pilgrims, the historical Christian ethic has always been to divorce the religion from the moral corruption of civil governments.
 
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and graduate of the Harvard Divinity School, Christopher Hedges, calls it nothing short of American Fascism. Commenting on his 2007 book, American Fascists: The Christian Right and Their War on America, Hedges points up the anomaly:

This is a new movement, as embodied by people like James Dobson or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, who call for the creation of a Christian state, who talk about attaining secular power. And they are more properly called dominionists or Christian reconstructionists, although it’s not a widespread term, but they’re certainly not traditional fundamentalists and not traditional evangelicals. They fused the language and iconography of the Christian religion with the worst forms of American nationalism and then created this sort of radical mutation, which has built alliances with powerful right-wing interests, including corporate interests, and made tremendous inroads over the last two decades into the corridors of power.

Hedges sees the effort as a Mass Movement and one he deems “the most dangerous in American History.”  The former New York Times war correspondent also sees an ominous endgame:

I mean, essentially, when you follow the logical conclusion of the ideology they preach, there really are only two options for people who do not submit to their authority. And it’s about submission, because these people claim to speak for God and not only understand the will of God, but be able to carry it out. Either you convert, or you’re exterminated. That’s what the obsession with the End Times with the Rapture, which, by the way, is not in the Bible, is about. It is about instilling — it’s, of course, a fear-based movement, and it’s about saying, ultimately, if you do not give up control to us, you will be physically eradicated by a vengeful God.

Hedges echoes the Founders in his concerns about the threat of take over of secular government by theocratic factions. No less an expert on religious factionalism than Thomas Jefferson warned us about elevating ecclesiastical law over democracy:

[If] the nature of … government [were] a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I [would] consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits [will] exclude the advances of information, and they [will] seem exactly where they [have always been]. And there [the] clergy will always keep them if they can. [They] will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a tow-rope. (Thomas Jefferson, to Pierrepont, Edwards, July 1801, quoted from Eyler Robert Coates, Sr., “Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government: Freedom of Religion”)

In a sense, Santorum’s comments may be spot on. Obama does come from a philosophical position far different that Santorum and his ilk. While Santorum bases his politics in Biblical revelation, Obama comes from the perspective of the rule of law and reason. As most political observers over the centuries have noted, this is a collision course with religiosity.  It was James Madison who deduced the antagonism in the American context:

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

Amen, Brother Madison. Amen.

Can fundamentalist religion and secular democracy co-exist, or are they on an inevitable collision course? What do you think?

Source: New York Times

~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

193 thoughts on “My Crucifix Is Bigger Than Yours: Santorum Charges President’s Agenda Springs From A”Phony Theology””

  2. Two late night-cap thoughts:

    Suppose the president hates all religions — good thing for the separation of church and state, huh?

    Second, San Torum’s recent comments explaining previous comment re O’bama’s theology–

    “An incredulous Bob Schieffer began his interview with Santorum Sunday by asking, “What in the world were you talking about?”

    “I was talking about the radical environmentalists,” Santorum said, suggesting that they believe man should protect the earth, rather than “steward its resources.” “I think that is a phony ideal. I don’t believe that’s what we’re here to do … We’re not here to serve the earth. That is not the objective, man is the objective.”

    That’s a frothy mix. God is the objective, dimwit!

  4. Kudos to Mespo.

    IMHO, the best combination of Natual and Positive law is found in the teachings of Confuscius

  6. AN
    then you mean i should not have commented. how troublesome.
    if so if it’s something to pass by with contempt, then why did you post it?
    Or were you aspiring to inspire contempt. I don’t think they are here to even note this contempt.
    If i wanted to chill out, i wouldn’t be here. You?
    all the best

  7. ajmacdonaldjr:

    Actually, Natural Law has nothing to do with Christianity since it’s genesis harkens back to Plato and Aristotle and their distinction between law based on nature (natural law) and law based on convention (positive law). It is thus over 2500 years old as a philosophy. The premise being that one can use reason to analyze human nature and hence develop sound policies. Roman stoic philosophers like Cicero took up the mantle from the Greeks and deduced that both natural law and positive law were necessary. The former leading men to act for benefit of society as a whole, and the latter being needed for protection of society. Thus combined law “ought to be a reformer of vice and an incentive to virtue.” (De Legibus)

    The early Christian Church borrowed heavily from these Greek and Roman Stoics like Cicero. Most notably, Aquinas and Gratian equated natural law with “divine law” or “eternal law” changing the concept of reason based analysis of human behavior to one based on divine revelation. Natural law thus took on the concepts of design and duty. The problem with the Christian analysis was that it excluded notions of positive law (derisively quoting Paul of Tarses and referring to it as the law of the Gentiles or “a law unto themselves”) which was based on experience and reason. It also took the classic interpretation of natural law learned from the Greeks and Romans and adapted it to the dogmatic prescriptions of the Roman Church thus depriving it of the utility for analyzing human conduct.

    Founders like Jefferson and Madison were well-acquainted with the writings of Cicero as were most educated men of the era. Likewise, they understood the lessons of the Dark Ages when Natural Law was posited as the basis for the Church’s war against reason. That may explain their utter disdain for things dogmatic and religious.

  8. Sanitarium!

    Oooh, they like this guy Obama, don’t they. They make it impossible to vote Repug. Obama is so smooth, so drug induce liberal. Obama gives repugs EVERY thing they ever, every wanted. Can’t argue with that.

    Become a prepper, cause those guys did NOT sign up for this shit. SHTF, please SHTF, do it now, do if for Liberty.

  9. idealist707,

    It’s just a photo, with a quote that some crazy Christians are pointing to it “as the Lord’s work”, which is ridiculous of course. Feel free to scroll right on by…

    My “two cents”…. would be in the vein of “chill out”…

  10. anon nurse,

    not to be a besserwischer, but…..
    if yóu seen enough otter films, you’ll recognize the gesture.
    It is common that the otter will stand on his hind legs, draining the water from his hair, while holding his catch (fish) between his paws and eating.
    The same gesture is used when wooing a lady otter in hopes of demonstrating he is a good fisherman, tho’ without catch for the moment.
    Otters will even bring gifts of fish to the shy female otter for wooing purposes.

    But as commonly said, it all depends on the eye of the beholder what is seen..

  11. I thought it was obvious: the immediate preceeding post of ajmjr which I took to be a blanket endorsement of natural rights law, absent context. Or perhaps endorsing Snatorum’s representation of natural law. If I’m wrong, sorry.

  13. ajmjr
    did i miss the link? one would be helpful. am great admirer of the one who should have been our first black president, and a uniting force like none.
    IMHO

  15. http://i.huffpost.com/gen/504713/original.jpg

    About the photo and from the following link:

    “The photographer even says his photos have caught the eye of a few religious organizations.

    “I’ve had lots of religious people call me up, saying that I was a tool doing the Lords work,” Kolodzinski said, according to the Sun.

    “There was a guy from a religious cult that called me once, I think they were from Switzerland but I’m not sure. He wanted me to come out to Switzerland and preach to all these people about how I felt, and what I experienced at the time.”

    However, the photographer insists the otters weren’t really praying, just playing with a stone.”

    (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/18/otter-casts-worries-to-th_n_1286336.html? “Otter Casts Worries To The Heavens, Prays” )

    …and what Lottakatz said. (Christopher Hedges’ book is well worth the time, IMO.)

  17. When it comes to legal philosophies, America’s WAS Natural Law. The law, today, is not based upon natural ethics – the social agreement that our conscience giving us all common lowest common denominator type standard of “right and wrong” which is beyond our selves and our institutions.

    I’ve written, extensively, on this subject before, and I will not rewrite what I’ve already written here. Suffice it to say that Natural Law trumps Legal Positivism, which is what America has today, meaning: thus and such is right or wrong BECAUSE WE (Congress, Courts) SAY SO (= “might makes right”). Natural Law is much more helpful in constructing—legally and philosophically—a more just society anyway.

    And this (i.e., Natural Law) is no new idea either. It’s only been around for the past 2,000 years or so . . .

    In short, if it’s good enough for Dr. King, which it was, then it’s good enough for me too.

    In fact, Dr. King’s entire philosophy is dependent upon Natural Law; and for one to deny the existence of Natural Law would be tantamount to denying the philosophical justification underlying Dr. King’s call for equal rights for all peoples, regardless of race, creed, or color, as outlined for us in the US Declaration of Independence.

    Hmmm . . .

    But, like I said, I’m not going to rehearse this matter here. I only wish for a much greater interest in Dr. King’s Natural Law-based philosophy, which was America’s legal philosophy, and I hope it will be again someday.

  18. ” . . . that President Obama’s policies are not “based on the Bible.””

    And the question would than become: might this be considered a helpful or harmful assertion in a political sense?

    And does Santorum care?

    And, remind me what century we are living in?

  20. Let’s go back to the point of who we are, the objects (not persons) to be converted to submission.
    Let me re-introduce the old idea of the evils of TV,etc. The ev. subliminal effects. The deterioration of our mental capacities to filter, subject to high information flow. I’ve only heard of the idea, no clue myself.

    Any possibility here coupled to why now? Have they even have done tests, disguised of course to check vulnerability levels? (Dracula laugh)

Comments are closed.