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
Jim,
You might want to look closely at the words you take from your Bible’s New Testament through the lens of Eschatology theology. Perhaps Jesus and Paul were end-times guys preaching the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God and when that failed to occur, the early church was seriously embarrassed.
Jim
1, February 21, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Blouise
2 Corinthians 9:7).
====================================================
Nope, won’t do. 2 Corinthians claims regarding false prophets without identifying their false teachings calls the writers integrity into serious question. 2 Corinthians is chocked full of ego strutting, excuse giving, and false humility. The writer of the letter is seen as a flip-flopper and weak by the Church in Corinth.
Nope. won’t do at all as proof that Paul said God loves a cheerful giver or that God does love a cheerful giver… especially when the writer of the letter, supposedly Paul (also not proven), was so sarcastic and confrontational in trying to bilk the Corinthians out of their hard-earned money simply to pay it all to the Church in Judea.
The only thing 2 Corinthians proves is that the writer was a con man out to get as much as he could and the people in the Church in Corinth knew it.
MIke A:
Thanks for the kind words.
Jim:
“Either agree with what I said or disprove it. Attacks show weakness!!!
***********************
You will answer to Zeus for your apostasy and burn in the fires of Gehenna. Either agree or disprove it. It makes about the same sense and is equally important. When comments are as silly as yours, ridicule is the only reasonable response. Like someone really cares what a First Century book advises on charitable giving.
Blouise
2 Corinthians 9:7).
“Second, Paul said that God loves a cheerful giver.” (Jim)
Did he now … prove it …
carol levy
Fair is equal for all. Wisdom is the answer for success. People who know where to put their money and NOT break the law are smart. The law says 15% on capital gains and that is what Romney paid. He didn’t violate any law. People who as you have now agreed get the earned income credit are paying nothing into the FEDERAL treasury and are NOT paying THEIR fair share. YOU are WRONG that the Middle class pay higher income tax rates because you can’t compare the Capital gains rate with income tax rates. The only reason Obama says what he does is he knows about 95% of Americans are dumb when it comes to taxes and he can get away with it because the liberal media is in his backpocket and won’t call him on it.
If you had read the article you see why they may get money back with the earned income credit but reading it may mean you have to take off your blinders to what anyone else has to say. And unlike, say, Romney, they have not socked money away in the Caymans so they do not have to pay taxes on it. The middleclass also pay a higher tax rate then, say, Mr. Romey.
If G-d loves a cheerful giver then the rich should be more then willing to pay their fair share.
And I did not know G-d wrote the tax code. Wow.
You remind me of a kid on the playground who stands there with his fingers in his ears, “Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah. I can’t hear you.” Your ears,your mind, and for all I know your Spirit is closed to anything and everything that does not fit into your little world. I am out of this with you. My turn, “Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah. It has become a waste of my time to hear you.”
carol levy
Nice Try but off base! First, all those taxes you mentioned are being paid by the rich too yet the poor, while they may pay those taxes as well, do not pay Federal income taxes. Some get the earned income tax which means they are takers not givers.
Second, Paul said that God loves a cheerful giver. It had nothing to do with the amount but how it is given from the heart. Paul was talking about equality and that God who gives the seed will bless the seed that is given.
My whole point has been that Obama injected the Bible into the debate and forgot to say that he wants to mandate one group pay more when God wants all to pay the same rate.
Jesus also said pay unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s.
Yes anyone who gets away with not paying their fair share should pay their fair share but Rick Warren, and you are wrong: .http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/07/fact-check-pastor-rick-warren-tweets-half-of-america-pays-no-taxes/
“But is it true? Does half of America get off scot-free when it comes to paying taxes?
Not exactly. When looking only at federal income tax, Warren is correct. Forty-seven percent of people either have such a low income that they are exempt from the federal income tax or they qualify for enough tax credits that they get more back than they pay in.
For example, a married couple with two children could have an annual income of about $46,000 and still pay no income tax after deductions, child tax credits and an earned income tax credit.
But federal income taxes are just a small part of the overall tax picture. There are still property taxes, state income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes and excise taxes, just to name a few.
To actually pay zero taxes, someone would have to be unemployed, not own any property, live in Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire or Oregon, where there is no sales tax, and not buy anything that has an excise tax, such as alcohol, cigarettes or gasoline.”
And you are wrong about tithing:
Writing from Macedonia to encourage the Corinthians to solve internal struggles, Paul defended the collection of tithes in scripture, saying, “Whatever you give is acceptable if you give it eagerly,” (2 Corinthians 8:12, NLT).
Paul points out a family’s needs should not be affected by tithing, but rather, each person should give in proportion to what they have been given (2 Corinthians 9:10) while giving as much as they are able to (2 Corinthians 8:12, 9:16).
Again, a lie or falsehood repeated does NOT become the truth.
idealist707
Who are U? Obviously a person with little intellect and not much to contribute. Therefore, go back to your corner and put your nose on the wall.
Hey folks,
Could this be a relief worker for BDAMAN???
Can’t be BDA in disguise, these rants are shorter and dumber.
carol levy
Fair shair is when all pay the same. When 48% of Americans pay no income tax, are now not paying payroll taxes, and get the earned income credit, that is not paying but rather taking. No progressive or liberal can defend that as being fair. That is why they only seek to downplay the so-called rich. Secondly, I do not care what Obama says. We pay too much now and government is too big. Since you brought up Jesus, He wants all to pay the same- 10%. No where in scripture will you find that it is ok for one group to give more than another.
“Obama wants to force the rich which is taking that scripture out of context. He quotes scripture ”
Jim either he quotes scripture or he misquotes it. Can;t be both.
The fact that you would take my comment, twist it to your own ends and then say I therefore agree with you is typical right wing behavior (maybe bad carb wiring?): make a lie and hope it becomes taken as truth..
I never said I agree with you, obviously I do not, and no matter how you turn that on its head, your statement of my agreement is false.
OPh and G-d gives us Free Will many blieve. That free will carries with it responsibility; to tell the truth (harrumph) and to those that much is given, much should be returned esp when it was the bush tax costs that has cost the treasury, ie. taxpayers, trillions in lost revenue. No one is saying the rich should carry te rest of us, we are saying pay your fair share. Romney is a perfect example of not doing so, offshore accounts and a 15% tax rate.
Mr Obama himself has said he is in the higher tax bracket and he feels he should pay more. A shame the folks on your side of the apparent aisle do not feel the same sense of responsibility. Jesus, I daresay, would not be proud.
carol levy
I have changed nothing. Read 79 above. You haven’t given any reason to say I am wrong so therefore thanks for agreeing with me.
Obama was referencing the Bible to justify his taxing the rich. The scripture he referenced doesn’t justify that at all for God does not force us to do so but hold us accountable. Obama wants to force the rich which is taking that scripture out of context. He quotes scripture and yet he only gave 1% instead of what the scripture requires as 10%.
This is a great post, mespo. Mr. Santorum’s theology is much closer to Michele Bachmann’s than to traditional Catholic moral theology, however. That is why arguing with his followers is a bit like inviting the staffs of the American Museum of Natural History and the Creation Museum to a symposium on evolutionary biology. Frankly, I wish he’d stop identifying himself as a Catholic. Mr. Santorum’s campaign slogan ought to be, “A new Cotton Mather for a new century.”
Postscript to Jim: the fact that one advances a proposition does not mandate that others either agree or “disprove” it. First, the burden of proof lies with the person making the proposition. Second, some propositions are nonsensical and do not merit any response other than silence.
Jim, changing your argument each time shows the weakness of your position, first it was “misquoted” now it is ‘justification.” Can;t wait to see what your next reason is for his being wrong. Could it be that you just do not agree with him and want to use scripture for our own purposes? (and interpretation(s) )
Mespo
Either agree with what I said or disprove it. Attacks show weakness!!!
Hey Jim maybe you’re the devil quoting scripture for your own purposes!
carol levy
Obama was referencing the Bible to justify his taxing the rich. The scripture he referenced doesn’t justify that at all for God does not force us to do so but hold us accountable. Obama wants to force the rich which is taking that scripture out of context. He quotes scripture and yet he only gave 1% instead of what the scripture requires as 10%.