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.
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
“Obama misquoted a scripture” -Jim
As if what’s there is “gospel”, so to speak… In my mind, today’s “scripture” is akin to the end product of that old game of “telephone”…
Jim, He misquoted a scriptural passage and you are not letting him off the hook? Here’s one for you then. “Judge not lest y be judged.” Whoops I misquoted that. It is actually : “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. ” Depending on version: “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
English Standard Version (©2001)
“Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.”
The President said: “For unto whom much is given, much shall be required,”
Ah, I see. The word ‘shall’ instead of ‘will”. That is a misquote worthy of excoriation.
idealist707
You are probably correct. However, Obama tried to use a scripture to justify taxing the rich. That is wrong!
Well, Santorum called it theology…..bad theology, not based on the Bible, he said.
So Obama misquoted, how many people do that? I’ll bet you that 98 out of 100 Christians can’t correctly cite the Golden Rule. For that matter, the Bible contradicts itself so many times that only experts know how many.
So at any rate. Hold him accountable. Is that worth a rant, or impeachment, or for that matter what does it have to do with political decisions.
Eagerly awaiting your of the Bible enlightened views.
idealist707
Also, I never made an analogy between God and Presidents. I pointed an inaccuracy in what OBAMS said only. Can you read?
idealist707
The problem with what you said is you are avoiding that Obama misquoted a scripture and I am not letting him off the hook.
Jim
Your analogy between God and Presidents is inappropriate.
God may do as you say, but we did not elect a President to wait until Judgement Day to judge us. He does not judge us, the courts do that.
He says that your representatives feel you should do the following, and I as your elected President with my Constitutional powers, feel also that I want to influence the implementation of these laws. Etc.
So it isn’t theology. He was just trying to reach the segment who need the help of the Bible to understand the idea of sharing both wealth and burdens—–as it stands many places in the scriptures.
Get the difference?
Santorum is scary and nutty but he is not dumb. He knew what he was doing when using the word ‘theology’. With his followers you do not need to be subtle in getting your subtext across.
Mespo,
I can’t believe that Paul really cares that corporations have too much power because he wants the “market” to solve all problems.
LK,
Thanks! If we’re luring you out of lurker mode, something must be going right. 😀
Jim:
” that President Obama’s policies are not “based on the Bible.””
They are not!!”
*******************
No President’s are supposed to be. That’s why we separate the secular from the sacred.
Don S
. . . that President Obama’s policies are not “based on the Bible.””
They are not!! Obama said that much is given much shall be given trying to use Christ’s words to justify his tax on the rich. It doesn’t work because God doesn’t force anybody to do anything. He simply allows us to live freely but suffer consequences for making bad choices. OBAMA on the other hand wants to force people to do something. That is not Christianity and is a phony theology.
In an interview, Chris Hedges was reportedly once asked, “Are you a Christian?” “Not that any Christian church would recognize,” he replied.
Seems candidate Ron Paul is channeling us. After attacking Santorum for being too concerned with controlling people’s social lives he is reported to have said:
“Paul also stood by comments he made in Kansas City on Saturday night, in which he said the country was ‘slipping into a fascist system.’
He argued that big business and government have too strong of a bond, and while the United States does not have authoritarian rule, he pointed to examples of American citizens captured “by the military and held indefinitely without a trial” as evidence the country was headed in that direction.
‘We’re not there, but there’s reasons why we should not be complacent,” Paul warned.'”
~CNN
LOttakatz:
“…I offer kudos to all of the guest bloggers this weekend, it’s a treasure trove of riches…”
****************
Thanks, Lotta. I was going to say the same thing about this weekend – just not as well as you did.
Rick Santorum, the U.S. is not in a religious war
Published: Monday, February 20, 2012, 7:02 AM
By Star-Ledger Editorial Board
“It is tempting to ignore Rick Santorum’s ravings about the supposed threat to religion freedom at a time when the nation has so many real problem to wrestle down.
But Santorum is ahead in the polls in Michigan, and now has all the momentum in what has become a two-man fight for the GOP presidential nomination with Mitt Romney.
So let’s take a look. Recently, Santorum said that President Obama “has reached a new low in this country’s history of oppressing religious freedom that we have never seen before.”
Maybe we missed this religious war. Because people of all faiths in America are attending services regularly and openly. We have heard no reports of government agents bothering them, putting them in jail, stifling their discussions, or even denying them government jobs and federal tax breaks.
Santorum may want to get out more often, and visit countries where this stuff happens every day.
This hyperventilation was triggered by the requirement that Catholic hospitals and universities offer employees coverage for birth control, a practice that Santorum sees as immoral. The churches themselves don’t have to provide the coverage, and in a compromise, Obama has agreed that they don’t have to cover the costs either.
Seems to us a reasonable compromise, as it does to many Catholics. The fact that Santorum is trying to puff this up as a crusade against religion is beyond ridiculous. If this the best the GOP can do, Gov. Chris Christie must be kicking himself for not jumping in.”
It’s been such a wonderful alternative to “winter outdoor activities” in a bare winter world without snow and still dark
How shall it be to find time when Spring comes?
Excellent article Mark and may I offer kudos to all of the guest bloggers this weekend, it’s a treasure trove of riches – I simply haven’t had the time to give the postings the attention (and study!) they deserve. Outstanding works all.
carol
1, February 19, 2012 at 8:59 am
If Santorium keeps this up he will crash and burn before the primaries are over.
—————–
He’s keep’n it up:
“Santorum: Prenatal testing is to ‘encourage abortions’
“The former Pennsylvania senators had told supporters on Saturday that the Affordable Care Act just created the requirement “because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.”
“You sound like you’re saying the purpose of prenatal care is to cause to have people to have abortions, to get more abortions in this country,” CBS host Bob Schieffer told Santorum on Sunday. “I think any number of people would say that’s not the purpose at all.”
“That’s simply not true,” Santorum replied. “The bottom line is that a lot of prenatal tests are done to identify deformities in utero, and the customary procedure is to encourage abortions.” …..
“I know you also had another child that was stillborn,” Schieffer noted. “Didn’t you want to know?”
“My child was not stillborn!” Santorum objected. “My child was born alive! He lived two hours. And by the way, prenatal testing was — we had a sonogram done there and they detected a problem. And, yes, the doctor said, ‘You should consider an abortion.’ This is typical, Bob. This is what goes on in medical rooms around the country.”
He continued: “And, yes, prenatal testing, amniocentesis does result, more often than not, in abortions. That is a fact.”
“Do you not want any kind of prenatal testing?” Schieffer wondered. “I mean, would we just turn our back on science?”
“Look, people have the right to do it,” Santorum admitted. “But to have the government force people to provide it free just has to me — is a bit loaded. … I think the president has a very bad record on the issue of abortion and children who are disabled, who are in the womb, and I think this is simply a continuation of that idea.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/19/santorum-prenatal-testing-is-to-encourage-abortions/
==========
A Santorum Presidency would see a curtailment of basic prenatal medical care by the government I have no doubt.
No wonder The RNC is going to so much trouble to fix the caucus and primaries even if it means blatant election fraud to get Mitt the nomination. Someone like Santorum would turn their party from toxic to glowing-in-the-dark radioactive. The Southern strategy and the allies they have cultivated for 30 years is simply devouring the Republican Party.