Santorum’s tax returns: a lack of charity?

posted at 11:35 am on February 16, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

A while back, when people were attacking Mitt Romney over not releasing his tax returns, I wrote that the entire exercise of tax-return transparency was nothing more than an excuse for class warfare attacks on the wealthy.  Romney didn’t defend his delay in releasing his returns very effectively, though, and in the end published them — and created a nine-day wonder over the fact that a man who derived almost all of his income through capital gains paid the cap-gains tax rate.  Romney handled the post-release very effectively, though, and as I predicted, no one has given it much thought since.  If he wins the nomination, Romney won’t have any more hiccups on this front.

Yesterday, Rick Santorum released four years of his own taxes, and started the class-warfare voyeurism cycle again:

USA TODAY calculated that the Santorums have paid effective tax rates between 25.4% (in 2007) and 28.5% (in 2010). That’s far more than what Mitt Romney’s effective tax rate was in 2010 but lower than Newt Gingrich’s rate for the same year.

The Santorums, filing jointly, had adjusted gross income of $659,637 in 2007. That went up to $945,100 in 2008, about $1.1 million in 2009 and $923,411 for 2010.

In other words, Santorum did pretty well in the private sector after leaving the Senate, but not as well as his competitors, so hitting him on his income won’t be terribly effective.   But it didn’t take long for the class-warfare knives to come out on another point:

However, Santorum’s tax returns reveal some interesting figures that might bring him under the scrutiny of his opponents as well as the Republican conservatives. Santorum is selling himself in the Republican presidential race as the most conservative candidate who is rooted in Christian values and the church.

In fact, it is Santorum’s ultra conservative philosophy and his religious way of life that is his USP for his claim to the Republican presidential nomination. But interestingly his tax returns tell a different story about his religious ways.

Christians are expected to give a certain part of their income to church and charity. According to the Old Testament, the rate of such offerings should be ten percent and the very practice is called tithing which means one tenth part of something. There are several mentions in the Bible on tithing by devotees.

So what did Santorum contribute? Was it $3,690 dollars over ten years?  Not exactly:

In 2008, Santorum reported an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $659,637, as per his tax returns. His deduction under the charity head is $13,383 for the year, which is just 2.2 percent of his AGI.  In 2008, he paid $21,990 to charity on his AGI of $945,100, at the rate of 2.33 percent.

For the year 2009, Santorum’s returns show that he has paid $29,822 to charity while his AGI is more than $1 million (1,116,736). That translates in to 2.67 percent of AGI to charity.

Well, that’s certainly well short of Romney’s contributions, to be sure, but it’s nothing to sneeze at, either.  As a Catholic, I can tell you that there isn’t much emphasis on “tithing,” though, only on prayerful consideration of contributions to one’s parish and the various missions conducted by the church.

I wonder if the International Business Times was as exercised about another Catholic’s track record of charitable giving as a percentage of income three years ago?

The White House on Wednesday also released the tax return for Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his wife, Jill. They reported an adjusted gross income of $269,256 and paid $46,952 in federal income taxes.

The Bidens also reported donating $1,885 to charity, less than 1 percent of their earnings. In a press release, the White House said the Bidens have made additional donations to charity not listed on the returns.

“The charitable donations claimed by the Bidens on their tax returns are not the sum of their annual contributions to charity,” it said. “They donate to their church, and they contribute to their favorite causes with their time as well as their checkbooks.”

That came to 0.69% of the AGI for 2008.  And unlike Santorum, Biden scolded people on the basis of his Catholic faith over not enthusiastically supporting higher taxes to help the less fortunate:

Why is this important?  Biden scolds people for not caring enough to “pitch in” and help out through heavier taxation.  “Catholic social doctrine,” Biden instructed, “as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most.”  While he waggles his fingers at others, Biden’s been pinching pennies in Delaware.  What’s worse is that he has sought to replace charity with government, perhaps as an excuse for his own parsimony.

If the Left wants to play a class warfare card on Santorum’s charitable giving, well, be our guest.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

As a Catholic, I can tell you that there isn’t much emphasis on “tithing,” though, only on prayerful consideration of contributions to one’s parish and the various missions conducted by the church.

I’m too lazy to look through the entire thread, but I have a few observations.

My brother and I were raised Lutheran (LCMS). He married a Catholic, and so he became a Catholic. Over the years, he’s sat on the finance board of their parish and their kids’ Catholic school, and he’s now a member of the board of trustees for the Catholic school where they’ve had two graduate and another currently in school. Privately, he’s admitted that on the whole (so not applicable across the board), the Catholics he’s come across are very lousy donors. In fact, they make most of their money off the annual parish festival and some other events–including sporting events. Biden sounds like the typical Catholic and, by comparison, Santorum is well above the average.

While we’re on the subject, just a reminder from Obama’s returns.

2000 AGI—$240,505; charity—$2,350
2001 AGI—$272,759; charity—$1,470
2002 AGI—$259,394; charity—$1,050
2003 AGI—$238,327; charity—$3,400
2004 AGI—$207,647; charity—$2,500
2005 AGI—$1,655,106; charity—$77,315
2006 AGI—$983,826; charity—$60,307
2007 AGI—$4,139,965; charity—$240,370
2008 AGI—$2,656,902; charity—$172,050
2009 AGI—$5,505,409; charity—$329,100
2010 AGI—$1,728,096; charity—$245,075

BuckeyeSam on February 16, 2012 at 1:28 PM

WHAT?

that can’t be true

Karl Magnus on February 16, 2012 at 12:16 PM

I’m afraid it is.

capitalist piglet on February 16, 2012 at 1:30 PM

The word “tithe” appears nowhere in Canon Law, nor is a percentage specified.

steebo77 on February 16, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Thank you for that. Hadn’t thought to look there.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I don’t recall Rick saying people should tithe. And whether tithing is a New Testament mandate is debatable.
Akzed on February 16, 2012 at 11:49 AM

And yet, tithing is mentioned many times in the bible. Contraceptives? Yeah, not once.

Those who preach religious moralism, especially proposed government enforced religious moralism should have the i’s dotted and their t’s crossed otherwise its clear do as I say and not as I do. It’s why child tape covering up catholic bishops moral authority on issues of sex and reproduction is about like Obama telling you your home budget is now gonna be controlled by the government because you need to be doing a better job of not overspending.

Boomer_Sooner on February 16, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Catholics do not go by the whole “tithing” concept. That is Old Testament and no longer applicable. We do not believe that Christ wants our giving to be based upon some arbitrary mathematical formula but, as Ed says, on a prayerful consideration of our particular circumstances and the priority we place on giving to the Church.

For someone who makes $15,000 a year, giving 10% of their income might mean they can’t put food on the table, which obviously God does not want. For someone who makes $100,000,000 per year and has assets of several billion dollars, giving 15% of their income might not be much of a sacrifice, which again is not what God wants. Circumstances differ and we need to each prayerfully consider what is appropriate to us.

Shump on February 16, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Yes you are right that Catholics are to give in “prayerful consideration” of their circumstances. Keep in mind also that Santorum is the father of 7 children – a few of whom are in college as well as a special needs child.

KickandSwimMom on February 16, 2012 at 1:33 PM

SANTORUM IS LUCIFER!!!!!
Mainstream Whoredog Media headline in 5….4…..3….
PappyD61 on February 16, 2012 at 1:06 PM

It’s always the one you least suspect. : )

listens2glenn on February 16, 2012 at 1:37 PM

As for this 10% does not exist stuff. Well I looked it up, because you were being a pain and thought why not. According to my Diocese,

Parishioners return a minimum of 10% of their pre-tax income to the Lord as a
suitable tithe of their treasure. (The rule of thumb is 5% to the parish, 1% to
the Diocese and 4% to other charities.)

http://www.dolr.org/pastoralplanning/ppp_modelparish.pdf

ArkyDore on February 16, 2012 at 1:19 PM

The document you cited was called “A Model Parish:”

PURPOSE OF PLANNING DOCUMENTS: The purpose of the Model Parish Model Curia documents is not to pass judgment on any parish, pastor or the Curia, but rather to reach a consensus regarding our usually unspoken assumptions of what the model parish and model curia would look like, if ever were one. In this way, we will be working with the same set of assumptions and priorities regarding desirable goals as we strategize for the future.

You should read a little more carefully next time.

steebo77 on February 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM

And that has already been shot down, their is no video of him being against the Tea Party…it clearly states he was talking about extreme movement within the Tea Party…old news, discredited, but some dupes I guess just don’t get it.
Keep posting that, and we will keep laughing at how easy it is to fool people like you…

Yet, the Tea Party is supporting a pork barrel politician who voted for the bridge to nowhere. I guess Tea Party people really have no principles, so who cares what they say.

rubberneck on February 16, 2012 at 1:45 PM

ArkyDore on February 16, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Like I said, even after you read the official canon, you still won’t, or ever admit you made an error…of course you can Google and find support…you can Google and find a flat earth society, quotes that prove we never landed on the moon, that Bush or the Jews were behind 9/11…I prefer more official sites and quotes…like what the Church actually states…
Have what you will…of course you are the most honest poster, if you never admit you are wrong, than you will always be right.

And as for this:

I could care less. I do care when the social values, holier than thou candidate tells me what I can do in my bedroom.

ArkyDore on February 16, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Another item that doesn’t exist…but you will find some obscure statement where he professes his personal beliefs, and later defines it further that he understands the difference between personal beliefs and representing the people…but you won’t be wrong, because you will just say you are right…end of debate.
The fact is, he never has stated he would legislate what you are saying he will…as a matter of fact he has voted quite the opposite, you didn’t know that?
That’s okay, I am sure you are still right, and still haven’t been wrong…

right2bright on February 16, 2012 at 1:52 PM

From the Washington post article

Santorum and his family now live in a four-bedroom northern Virginia house on five acres assessed at $1.4 million in 2010.

What is Santorum’s domicile?

Is he running as a Pennsylvanian or a Virginian like Newt?

and how did he miss the VA primary deadline if he lives there?

Fleuries on February 16, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Yet, the Tea Party is supporting a pork barrel politician who voted for the bridge to nowhere. I guess Tea Party people really have no principles, so who cares what they say.

rubberneck on February 16, 2012 at 1:45 PM

And like the other poster…you were wrong, but you won’t admit it…I see a pattern emerging…

right2bright on February 16, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Is that a mortal sin? Some seem to think so. Or is it a venial sin? Not being Catholic its hard to keep up.

Bmore on February 16, 2012 at 11:44 AM

The one who knows is Mr. Santorum; indeed, it may not be a sin at all, depending on Mr. Santorums circumstances. Both the Bible and the Catechism points out repeatedly that giving is a personal thing. We don’t know whether Mr. Santorum gave gifts of goods and services other than money, and it isn’t our place to know. What we do know is, that by the standards of liberals — the ones who want to drag Mr. Santorum down — he gave generously — for, if you examine Mr. Obama’s tax returns, you find that until he decided to run for President, he gave 1/3 relative to Mr. Santorum, and if you look at Mr. Joe Biden, ditto.

My church runs a food bank which feeds 300 people a week. About a quarter of the goods we provide are “surplus” from the Government (in return, it is local governments who give out food vouchers allowing a family (who can be of any faith — not just Catholic) to pick up food). About half comes from local markets — we go pick up about-to-expire or just-expired food. The other quarter comes from parishioners — week in and week out.

On Thanksgiving, each family gets a turkey.

Now, I won’t even ask what the guy who drives his pickup truck around to the markets every week puts into the donation basket — why should I? And I won’t ask how the church, year in and year out — gets 300 free turkeys at thanksgiving. Why should I?

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is a very good way of describing this — and it works well, as long as it’s voluntary.

Those who propose a hard and fast “tithe” are identical to our Government, who also attempts to perform charity by coercion.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2012 at 1:55 PM

and how did he miss the VA primary deadline if he lives there?

Fleuries on February 16, 2012 at 1:52 PM

The same way Hillary missed it, and she had one of the most sophisticated political army ever assembled…it’s not as easy as one thinks, there are a lot of moving parts, each state has their own system and way of being a nominee…When you don’t have the huge resources of money starting out, you are going to miss something.
Like one of the states, Mitt is trying to get Rick off the ballot because he is 8 votes short of having “valid” signatures…
That’s how Obama won his first Senate seat, he literally challenged every contestant, legally, and had them disqualified…that’s how he won.
It works, if you don’t have substance, use “technicalities” to win…

right2bright on February 16, 2012 at 1:58 PM

You should read a little more carefully next time.

steebo77 on February 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Oh, they read it…they just couldn’t afford to quote it, they would be wrong, and that wouldn’t be right…

right2bright on February 16, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Paying tithing is VERY important for Christians. I’m Mormon… it’s VERY MUCH a core part of our walk with Christ…

Nicole Coulter on February 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM

The “Christ” of Mormonism is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

Mormon theology teaches that God is only one of countless gods, that he used to be a man on another planet, that he became a god by following the laws and ordinances of that god on that world, and that he brought one of his wives to this world with whom he produces spirit children who then inhabit human bodies at birth. The first spirit child to be born was Jesus. Second was Satan, and then we all followed. The Bible says that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5), that God has been God eternally (Psalm 90:2) — which means he was never a man on another planet…read more at http://www.carm.org/mormonism (the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry).

Yes, I have a copy of the The Book of Mormon, and have read it, as well as Gospel Principles.

KyMouse on February 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM

steebo77 on February 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM

I have to go, but I am not through with this. In life things are expected out of you without being explicitly told. Giving 10% is more of a rule of thumb. Church does not command it, because if it were in the cannon laws, then it would be a sin if you didn’t. That is why you give as much as you can, but in reality everyone is supposed to strive for 10%. Giving money to the church is how you spread the good word.

I agree with Boomer

And yet, tithing is mentioned many times in the bible. Contraceptives? Yeah, not once.

Those who preach religious moralism, especially proposed government enforced religious moralism should have the i’s dotted and their t’s crossed otherwise its clear do as I say and not as I do. It’s why child tape covering up catholic bishops moral authority on issues of sex and reproduction is about like Obama telling you your home budget is now gonna be controlled by the government because you need to be doing a better job of not overspending.

Boomer_Sooner on February 16, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I don’t think everyone needs to pay 10%, unless of course you are preaching at me, then I expect you to be perfect. Then again I don’t expect people to preach at me, because I know no one is perfect. See where I am going with this? Don’t preach at me unless your perfect. Santorum has done a heck of a lot of preaching at me and it is not appreciated.

If I wanted the government to be my parent, I would have voted for Obama. Same thing is going to happen under Santorum. All of his off the cuff remarks are about how people have too much freedom. What kind of absurd BS is that. Don’t believe me, check out his quote on libertarians. In fact he calls libertarians, libertines like some of the more childish posters on this site.

ArkyDore on February 16, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Yes you are right that Catholics are to give in “prayerful consideration” of their circumstances. Keep in mind also that Santorum is the father of 7 children – a few of whom are in college as well as a special needs child.

KickandSwimMom on February 16, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Well he probably could have given a lot more if he had aborted his special needs child…and give more if he and his wife, have made sure this special needs child is loved.
Funny how the standard of “the least among us”, only applies to how much you give to the church…not ever considering that the church body is also the family…but than that would give Rick huge credit, and we couldn’t do that…

right2bright on February 16, 2012 at 2:02 PM

ArkyDore on February 16, 2012 at 2:02 PM

With all of that..no one has come up with any vote he has done in the past to support what you say…no quote from him stating that he would pass any bill or support any bill for what you say…in other words.
You are posting about something that has no facts, no history, nothing, just something that you have created in your mind.
Kind of like people believing in Hope and Change, that never existed and was never created…you believe in some strange fantasy about him controlling your sexual life (which is weird in itself), with not historical context….it’s just made up.
Of course you THINK he has, so you must be right…now try to find some support for you fantasy.

right2bright on February 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Yes you are right that Catholics are to give in “prayerful consideration” of their circumstances. Keep in mind also that Santorum is the father of 7 children – a few of whom are in college as well as a special needs child.

KickandSwimMom on February 16, 2012 at 1:33 PM

You are right. Catholics are told to give what they can. Tithing is not really advocated from the pulpit.

Santorum has 7 children and Bella requires very expensive care. Her care probably costs tens of thousands a year.

fight like a girl on February 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Santorum and his family now live in a four-bedroom northern Virginia house on five acres assessed at $1.4 million in 2010.

Fleuries on February 16, 2012 at 1:52 PM

I find it cute that the Washington Post tries to impute wealth from the assessment of a house which has been subjected to the Government’s real estate balloon. As for living in Virginia, well — where do Senators live when they are Senators, given that they can’t live out of their office?

Since he is a Senator from Pennsylvania, he undoubtedly meets their requirements for residency. It might be another thing if he registered to vote in Virginia, but only liberals are so stupid (or evil) as to register in two places at once.

I live in a house valued at over $1M, and, if I had to buy my house on the market today, I couldn’t. I’m really lucky to have bought when buying was within my means.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM

This is why he specifically talks about libertines, it’s a group of people he has identified within some movements:

A libertine is one devoid of most moral restraints, which are seen as unnecessary or undesirable, especially one who ignores or even spurns accepted morals and forms of behavior sanctified by the larger society. Libertines place value on physical pleasures, meaning those experienced through the senses.

That is who he is talking about…get it? An actual group that few of us want to be associated with…but apparently you do?

right2bright on February 16, 2012 at 2:08 PM

ArkyDore on February 16, 2012 at 2:02 PM

I missed Santorum preaching. I also missed him telling people to tithe.
But then, I can’t find where he ever said he would outlaw abortion.

fight like a girl on February 16, 2012 at 2:10 PM

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM

A house valued at 1.2 million in Northern Virginia is modest. They have some of the highest real estate values in the country. I saw Santorum’s house and it would be worth about 500,000 where I live.

The real point though, is why does it matter?

FYI, Many of the people at the Washington Post live in houses valued the same as his.

fight like a girl on February 16, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I am a Presbyterian (PCA) and grew up in an Evangelical tradition. I have yet to meet a confessing Christian who does not believe that tithing is the norm and expectation presented in the Bible.

Most of the Christians I know view 10% as the floor of giving to the church. The first 10% go to your local church and anything beyond that that you want to give to other Christian missions is strongly encouraged.

For the record, we tithe off of our Gross Income, not AGI, as the Lord gets the first-fruits not what’s left after the taxman cometh.

Sherwood on February 16, 2012 at 2:17 PM

I don’t know why people look at tax returns to see how charitable people are.

You know, looking at my tax returns I’m a miserly scrooge who would just as soon let the poor and disadvantaged make their way on their own. I don’t put anything down as charitable contributions. I don’t believe one should get anything back from giving to charity. The idea is to give with no thoughts of recompense. Thus, no deduction.

Mitoch55 on February 16, 2012 at 2:23 PM

I don’t recall Rick saying people should tithe. And whether tithing is a New Testament mandate is debatable.
Akzed on February 16, 2012 at 11:49 AM

And yet, tithing is mentioned many times in the bible. Contraceptives? Yeah, not once.

Those who preach religious moralism, especially proposed government enforced religious moralism should have the i’s dotted and their t’s crossed otherwise its clear do as I say and not as I do. It’s why child tape covering up catholic bishops moral authority on issues of sex and reproduction is about like Obama telling you your home budget is now gonna be controlled by the government because you need to be doing a better job of not overspending.

Rationalize how it’s perfectly ok however your mental gymnastics allows you.

Boomer_Sooner on February 16, 2012 at 2:26 PM

I don’t recall Rick saying people should tithe. And whether tithing is a New Testament mandate is debatable.
Akzed on February 16, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Also debatable is whether upstanding homosexual’s are New Testament condemned any more than folks who have any sex for reasons other than reproduction.

Boomer_Sooner on February 16, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Sherwood on February 16, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Apparently you don’t know many Catholics. The Catholic church does not put a price on worship or for being a member. I have been Catholic all my life and never heard any Mass regarding tithing.

fight like a girl on February 16, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Also debatable is whether upstanding homosexual’s are New Testament condemned any more than folks who have any sex for reasons other than reproduction.

Boomer_Sooner on February 16, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Everything is “debatable”…
The fact is, the New Testament never condemns homosexuality…It condemns the acts associated with homosexuality.
In fact the bible Old and New, does not condemn homosexuality , just the actual physical act.
It’s consistent, God asks us not to judge the heart, but we can judge the actions…

right2bright on February 16, 2012 at 2:36 PM

I missed Santorum preaching. I also missed him telling people to tithe.
But then, I can’t find where he ever said he would outlaw abortion.

fight like a girl on February 16, 2012 at 2:10 PM

That’s the irony…he never said anything they are accusing him of…these are trolls with absolutely no values at all…libertines is the right word for these creatures who are spreading these lies…

right2bright on February 16, 2012 at 2:38 PM

It does smack of hypocrisy though that Santorum is who is supposed to be some sort of “Super Catholic” doesn’t even come close to tithing. Maybe he should get off his moral high horse and stop worrying so much about what married couples do in the bedroom?

All of the flak Santorum is dishing out at Romney for his poorly mangled line about caring for the poor, and yet his gifts to the “poor” are a rounding error compared to Romney who has given around 15%, which is astonishingly high.

Also, Santorum is not going to be able to run as a “regular Joe” to Romney’s Gordan Gekko. Santorum is a MILLIONAIRE lobbyist. That’s not going to earn him any additional points over Mitt.

BradTank on February 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM

“Super Catholic”? What in the heck is that supposed to mean? He has never set himself up as some sort of religious figure, although he has expressed belief in the theology of his church. I’ll bet you Mormons have a real problem with the widow’s mite.

Portia46 on February 16, 2012 at 2:39 PM

I don’t understand the focus on tax deductible charitable giving; as though that’s the only kind of charitable giving possible. At least half of what my wife and I contribute to non-profit organizations goes to 501c4 organizations and we cannot write that off on our taxes. To look at our tax returns, we never made those contributions. Look at our checkbook, though . . . .

jdp629 on February 16, 2012 at 2:43 PM

I don’t particularly like Santorum, but I wish people would give him a break about his charitable donations.

First of all, he doesn’t have to declare all of his donations, and for all we know he may not. In fact, I would definitely respect him more if it turned out he didn’t declare all of his donations. Because, you see, it’s kinda cool to donate $100k out of your million-dollar income to your church or other charity, but if you turn around and deduct that from your taxes (with a 36% marginal rate that he is probably in), then you are effectively asking the government (or your fellow taxpayers, to look at it another way) to pay $36,000 of your donation for you. That’s not so cool anymore, is it?

Then there is the fact that the guy is raising 7 or 8 kids. Now, people seldom think of raising kids as a charitable donation, but when you start with a little seven-pound bundle of joy and you feed and clothe and school it for twenty-five years until it grows into an engineer or a teacher or a doctor, than you are, in a way making a pretty hefty in-kind donation to society. And the man’s doing it seven times over.

There’s plenty of reasons to dislike Santorum; this is not one of them.

Time Lord on February 16, 2012 at 2:44 PM

I am a Presbyterian (PCA) and grew up in an Evangelical tradition. I have yet to meet a confessing Christian who does not believe that tithing is the norm and expectation presented in the Bible.

Sherwood on February 16, 2012 at 2:17 PM

No, tithing is not the norm. Jesus asked much more of us. Check out Matthew 19 — where Jesus tells the young man to sell everything. What was the response of the disciples, and what was Jesus’ response?

We Catholics believe that tithing is neither correct nor necessary. Now, you can proceed to cross us off the list of “professing Christians”.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Those who preach religious moralism, especially proposed government enforced religious moralism should have the i’s dotted and their t’s crossed otherwise its clear do as I say and not as I do. It’s why child tape covering up catholic bishops moral authority on issues of sex and reproduction is about like Obama telling you your home budget is now gonna be controlled by the government because you need to be doing a better job of not overspending.

Rationalize how it’s perfectly ok however your mental gymnastics allows you.

Boomer_Sooner on February 16, 2012 at 2:26 PM

I’m calling you on this. It’s a lie. Outright. Santorum has never proposed that government “enforce” what you call “religious moralism” (not real sure what that means).

Portia46 on February 16, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Then there is the fact that the guy is raising 7 or 8 kids.

Time Lord on February 16, 2012 at 2:44 PM

One of which is special needs. And it’s 7, because number 8 died in hospital shortly after birth. That the child Gabriel, about whom the liberals raised such a ruckus, because the Santorums took him home and kept him overnight — introducing him to their other children.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2012 at 2:54 PM

I don’t know why people look at tax returns to see how charitable people are.

You know, looking at my tax returns I’m a miserly scrooge who would just as soon let the poor and disadvantaged make their way on their own. I don’t put anything down as charitable contributions. I don’t believe one should get anything back from giving to charity. The idea is to give with no thoughts of recompense. Thus, no deduction.

Mitoch55 on February 16, 2012 at 2:23 PM

You SHOULD claim your deduction. Do what you can to keep money out of the Fed’s coffers. If it makes you feel guilty, donate the tax savings to the same charity. I’m sure they would appreciate the extra money.

SPCOlympics on February 16, 2012 at 3:01 PM

I agree with right2bright on this issue of tithing. Tithing is mentioned in the Old Testament, but as a Christian, I follow the teachings of Jesus and as taught by Apostle Paul. Jesus did not specify monetary standard in giving and is not a mandate.

Those who think Santorum is not following Bible principle need to reread their Bible about this. Those who has not read the Bible need to use other standard as the Bible are for Christian teaching and not used to judge others.

toolnutz on February 16, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Seems to me that they have a young family, including a daughter who is gravely ill. I think they have enough financial burdens already.

Y-not on February 16, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Luke 18:9-14

I believe the 10% tithe remains applicable to God’s people. I also don’t believe it’s something to either pride oneself on or “gig” other people on. It’s between the believer and God.

J.E. Dyer on February 16, 2012 at 3:13 PM

“Sell ALL of your possessions and follow me” – Jesus

kirkill on February 16, 2012 at 3:21 PM

“Because, you see, it’s kinda cool to donate $100k out of your million-dollar income to your church or other charity, but if you turn around and deduct that from your taxes (with a 36% marginal rate that he is probably in), then you are effectively asking the government (or your fellow taxpayers, to look at it another way) to pay $36,000 of your donation for you. That’s not so cool anymore, is it?”

Strange logic. It’s Mr. Santorum’s money, part of which he pays in taxes. It’s not the government’s money, part of which it allows Mr. Santorum to keep.

samharker on February 16, 2012 at 3:22 PM

I agree with right2bright on this issue of tithing. Tithing is mentioned in the Old Testament, but as a Christian, I follow the teachings of Jesus and as taught by Apostle Paul. Jesus did not specify monetary standard in giving and is not a mandate.
Those who think Santorum is not following Bible principle need to reread their Bible about this. Those who has not read the Bible need to use other standard as the Bible are for Christian teaching and not used to judge others.
toolnutz on February 16, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Jesus also never spoke on homosexuality or contraception. In the New Testament you will have to make the stretch and seek out only recent modern “translations” just to find a PASSING POSSIBLY translated mention of it in a single sentence in the new testament, NOT spoken by Jesus or anyone divine. One sentence. More than that, one that even mentions it only in the context to say that “GOD GAVE them up into it”!

But I’m willing to bet you might use your bible “to judge others” on that topic from time to time. If you don’t many apologies, but many do. Santorum does. The least he can do is not selectively pick out a sentence here a sentence there to enforce on OTHER people(or in fact, zero mentions at all, contraception)while he ignores the ones that might apply to him.

Faith is not a tool to manipulate voters with and none of these candidates, or indeed the Catholic Church and it’s Bishop’s, truly live the faith the profess for you to follow or enforce on others. I don’t care if Santorum tithes properly biblically or not, until I remember all the big govt stances he’s made injecting the govt into the lives of other American’s because the bible tells me so.

But I’ve no stomach for hypocritical charlatans. A populist religious moralist. Sounds like a great plan guys.

Boomer_Sooner on February 16, 2012 at 3:39 PM

But I’ve no stomach for hypocritical charlatans. A populist religious moralist. Sounds like a great plan guys.

Boomer_Sooner on February 16, 2012 at 3:39 PM

A black pot appears on stage.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Dang, you make too much sense!

None should focus on the other’s religion. Period.

We need a president, not a pope.

Schadenfreude on February 16, 2012 at 1:00 PM

I respectfully disagree. If someone subscribed to Scientology, I’d seriously question his/her critical thinking skills since its founder declared it a money-making scheme from the getgo.

As a woman, I’d also be very suspect of a Muslim.

It’s a pity no one looked into Obama’s beliefs. Black Liberation Theology would have raised red flags all over Obama being “moderate”.

I do not thing all beliefs are equal and I certainly don’t think all beliefs are benign.

Portia46 on February 16, 2012 at 3:46 PM

I’m calling you on this. It’s a lie. Outright. Santorum has never proposed that government “enforce” what you call “religious moralism” (not real sure what that means).
Portia46 on February 16, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Might be a good idea then not to call lie to something you’re not real sure what it means the, no? Social policies, stances, or laws based on religious principle, contraception, homosexuality, not abortion, abortion can have a very clear MORAL argument made against it without having to rely on religious moralism about how it’s against god, buy indeed making the abortion argument FROM a religious standpoint would be religious moralism.

(i.e., The Catholic Church and Rick Santorum are practing Religious Moralism with their stance on contraceptives.)

I agree they shouldn’t have to pay for it. But they also shouldn’t be able to mandate that anyone working for them not be able to insure themselves for its procurement.

Your church shouldn’t be able the be mandated to marry homosexual’s and recognize its validity. But you also shouldn’t be able to mandate that the church down the street can’t either.

Name a social conservative issue and chances are its from a place of religious moralism. And if you’re only gonna pick and choose the MANY rules in the bible you choose to recognize regarding the behavior of OTHERS yet brush off the ones regarding your own behavior, you’re a hypocrit.

And again, I couldn’t care less if he tithed or not. But don’t torpedo a perfectly good election on the issue of incompetence by turning it into an election on bc(never mentioned in the bible)and social conservative religious principles if you haven’t got your own i’s dotted and t’s crossed. You know, that plank in your OWN eye?

Boomer_Sooner on February 16, 2012 at 4:04 PM

A black pot appears on stage.
unclesmrgol on February 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Hi there, please state your case for this. How an I a hypocrit, charlatan, or populist religious moralist? Have I advocated you having to conform to my view of the world or the issues, while in the same breath chastising the very idea? Or have I merely advocated that you’re free to see the world, believe, and live as your belief and freedom dictate, up to the point that you injure others rights to the same?

Or how am I a charlatan, or “fraud”? Please feel free to elaborate beyond an insult. ;)

Boomer_Sooner on February 16, 2012 at 4:13 PM

In fact the bible Old and New, does not condemn homosexuality , just the actual physical act.
It’s consistent, God asks us not to judge the heart, but we can judge the actions…
right2bright on February 16, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Agreed on the first 11 words. But please present scripture from the New Testament(remember the new covenant now…)where Jesus condemns the ACT of homosexuality, or indeed where it clearly states what you portend.

And the last sentence just sounds like rationalization to me. If its actions you judge, and this rule is hard a steadfast with barely as much as a passing modern translation mention in one sentence, enough so that you feel very adamantly about it, why do you then not also feel just as adamantly the Rick and all the rest of us should be tithing properly and that not doing so is just as serious an infraction?

Boomer_Sooner on February 16, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Catholics do not go by the whole “tithing” concept. That is Old Testament and no longer applicable. We do not believe that Christ wants our giving to be based upon some arbitrary mathematical formula but, as Ed says, on a prayerful consideration of our particular circumstances and the priority we place on giving to the Church.

For someone who makes $15,000 a year, giving 10% of their income might mean they can’t put food on the table, which obviously God does not want. For someone who makes $100,000,000 per year and has assets of several billion dollars, giving 15% of their income might not be much of a sacrifice, which again is not what God wants. Circumstances differ and we need to each prayerfully consider what is appropriate to us.

Shump on February 16, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Exactly. Although I no longer am one, I grew up in a very Catholic family (with cousins who are priests and nuns) and never heard the term ‘tithing’ until I learned about other religions when I was older. You were expected to give some personal amount each Sunday or, like my parents did, monthly, and to support Catholic charity efforts like Catholic Charities, or give your time and effort. My parents directly supported an orphan in Kenya until he was an adult, even though they had 5 kids and we were pretty poor. When I was older, I worked in the church nursery and was in the music group for Mass (there was an effort to modernize services with “Guitar Mass”, it was the 70s).

Also, Catholics aren’t Bible-bound like evangelicals. We never memorized Bible verses, catechism classes were more about lessons and stories (moral parables). The only direct Bible quotes I remember were when passages were read during Mass as the basis for the sermon.

Common Sense on February 16, 2012 at 5:09 PM

So what did Santorum contribute? Was it $3,690 dollars over ten years? Not exactly:

In 2008, Santorum reported an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $659,637, as per his tax returns. His deduction under the charity head is $13,383 for the year, which is just 2.2 percent of his AGI. In 2008, he paid $21,990 to charity on his AGI of $945,100, at the rate of 2.33 percent.

For the year 2009, Santorum’s returns show that he has paid $29,822 to charity while his AGI is more than $1 million (1,116,736). That translates in to 2.67 percent of AGI to charity.

And? If Santorum believes in tithing, he probably doesn’t even claim his church offerings. He may even put more in, like 20% or more (cheerful giving). He probably waives speaking fees at charitable organizations. There are many ways to give without cash and/or claiming it.

I know this because my church knows I don’t want any receipts. In fact most times I put cash in the plate, not checks or in those little envelopes. While I’m not in the 1%, I am pretty close by the grace of God.

An extreme example of cheerful giving would be R.G. LeTourneau. The more God blessed him, the more he gave until he was “tithing” 90% of his income and this was during the 60s. His cheerful giving influenced a lot of people to aim for the same.

AH_C on February 16, 2012 at 7:05 PM

For the record, we tithe off of our Gross Income, not AGI, as the Lord gets the first-fruits not what’s left after the taxman cometh.

Sherwood on February 16, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Yes. And as much of a financial hardship it can be at times, we find ways to get it done. You do without a regular movie night in favor of a bowl of popcorn and an old Disney movie. The habit of cooking a nice Valentine’s Day dinner for my better half began when we were dirt poor. I continue it to this day because I found it was more meaningful than an expensive dinner at Ruth’s Chris.

For me the concept of tithing has taught me to keep the quest for “things” in perspective.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM

until I remember all the big govt stances he’s made injecting the govt into the lives of other American’s because the bible tells me so.

Boomer_Sooner on February 16, 2012 at 3:39 PM

^^This^^

If Santorum does contribute but doesn’t claim it on his taxes, then he should do the same with the rest of his beliefs. He should also keep it to himself.

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 7:17 PM

And? If Santorum believes in tithing, he probably doesn’t even claim his church offerings. He may even put more in, like 20% or more (cheerful giving). He probably waives speaking fees at charitable organizations. There are many ways to give without cash and/or claiming it.

AH_C on February 16, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Then why did he claim ANY charitable donations at all?

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 7:19 PM

And? If Santorum believes in tithing, he probably doesn’t even claim his church offerings. He may even put more in, like 20% or more (cheerful giving). He probably waives speaking fees at charitable organizations. There are many ways to give without cash and/or claiming it.

AH_C on February 16, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Then why did he claim ANY charitable donations at all?

csdeven on February 16, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Too many reasons to list. How about this one? I never claim charity related to Christian orgs, i.e. church, missionaries, Bible camps etc.

I haven’t donated to secular charities, other than Goodwill (ain’t worth the hassle running after couple hundred bucks in various GW receipts and time is money). If I did cut a check to Komen, then yeah, I’d want a receipt.

Anything I give to God directly or indirectly, I will not claim, all others, sure, why not, since they could use it more effectively than Govt. Someone noted above that claiming deductions is akin to other taxpayers paying for my donations, in that case, I’ll be sure that when I give to secular orgs, I will claim it, because every buck I don’t send Uncle Sam is a buck that charity could better do with.

But on principle, what I give to God is between me and Him and it maintains the spirit of separation of church & state, which any frothing libtard should appreciate.

AH_C on February 16, 2012 at 7:27 PM

In fact the bible Old and New, does not condemn homosexuality , just the actual physical act.
It’s consistent, God asks us not to judge the heart, but we can judge the actions…
right2bright on February 16, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Agreed on the first 11 words. But please present scripture from the New Testament(remember the new covenant now…)where Jesus condemns the ACT of homosexuality, or indeed where it clearly states what you portend.

And the last sentence just sounds like rationalization to me. If its actions you judge, and this rule is hard a steadfast with barely as much as a passing modern translation mention in one sentence, enough so that you feel very adamantly about it, why do you then not also feel just as adamantly the Rick and all the rest of us should be tithing properly and that not doing so is just as serious an infraction?

Boomer_Sooner on February 16, 2012 at 4:27 PM

right2bright is absolutely right.

There is one God: Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit.

Catholics (and all Christians) believe the Bible is the Word of God. While actual quotes of Jesus while He was on earth are found 99% in the Gospels, the entire Bible is the Word of God, so the Bible taken as a whole is what Jesus instructs us and reveals to us, specifically the fulfillment of His covenant to mankind found in the New Testament.

The entire Bible is God’s revelation to mankind, His Word.

So if you want to know what Jesus tells us about homosexuality, I’ll post some quotes from the written Word of God.

Of course, some will twist God’s Words to make them into whatever they want them to be. But that is individual interpretation of the Bible, something the Bible warns against. The traditional and (up until recently) universal Christian interpretation of the Bible for the last 2,000 years has been that these quotes are interpreted at their face value, that homosexual ACTS are a sin in the eyes of God. So, Sacred Tradition (the oral Word of God) tells us how to interpret Sacred Scripture (the written Word of God.)

We don’t interpret in a vacuum or on our own individually, even after praying to the Holy Spirit for discernment. We test our interpretations with Sacred Tradition.

As someone has very kindly already pointed out, we can judge that an act is a sin, because God has told us so. What we cannot judge is the severity of that sin. Only God can read the hearts and minds of men and only He will judge us on our sins. And, of course, we are all sinners and we each have our own temptations and inclinations towards various sins. Those inclinations are not sins. Only when we give in to them are they sins.

To whom much is given, much is expected. The severity of sin is relative to the grace and revelation given to that person by God, to be judged by God. But that is not the same thing as saying that a sinful act is not a sin at all or the same as people turning a blind eye to truth or closing off what their conscience is telling them.

We have the whole homosexual story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Exodus.

Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

Romans 1:26-28, 32: For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

1 Timothy 8-11: Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Jude 7: “Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

Elisa on February 16, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Yes you are right that Catholics are to give in “prayerful consideration” of their circumstances. Keep in mind also that Santorum is the father of 7 children – a few of whom are in college as well as a special needs child.

KickandSwimMom on February 16, 2012 at 1:33 PM

You are right. Catholics are told to give what they can. Tithing is not really advocated from the pulpit.

Santorum has 7 children and Bella requires very expensive care. Her care probably costs tens of thousands a year.

fight like a girl on February 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Exactly.

Seems to me that Rick Santorum has given generously and that, by all indications, he has offered to God his entire life and being, devoutly trying to please Our Lord by trying to living his life in accordance with God’s Holy Word, both written and oral through the Church.

Santorum has said that he fails sometimes, as do we all. But he seems to give all he has to the Lord, especially through his sacrifices and devotion to his family and the Church.

I have little patience in people nitpicking Santorum’s obvious deep faith in Our Lord. I appreciate those of you here defending him.

The Bible talks about tithing and it is a commendable and Godly act. But the Bible does not command us all to tithe, but to give generously with all we have, not just money. Everything we have is a gift from God and belongs to Him.

The Catholic Church (through Sacred Tradition – the oral Word of God) has NEVER interpreted the Bible as saying that tithing is mandatory or the only way. Santorum is not doing anything against his faith or being a hypocrite in any way.

God bless him and his lovely family.

God bless all here.

Elisa on February 16, 2012 at 7:45 PM

I live in a house valued at over $1M, and, if I had to buy my house on the market today, I couldn’t. I’m really lucky to have bought when buying was within my means.

unclesmrgol

To Uncle, I was just pasting for facts, not intending to emphasize the value of the Santorum’s home. I Have been happy to spend checks with real estate commissions from time to time, I love real estate, homes, nice homes, please let me apologize if you were offended.

Are people here saying Senators don’t have to choose what state they are from? Other professions who work here and there, like NYC and somewhere else have to choose for the IRS.
Is Santorum going to use VA or PA, I am just wondering?

Fleuries on February 16, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Santorum paid $51K in medical expenses in 2010, which aren’t deductible because those expenses are less than 7.5% of adjusted gross income. That amount comes out of the family budget.

I don’t know if his two older kids are in college, but that’s got to cost him as well.

I don’t think it’s realistic to complain about charitable deductions when, 1) Catholics aren’t required to tithe, and 2) you are raising seven kids, one with special needs.

If Santorum and his wife were older, with all the kids out of the house and done with college, and had the same income, then I might be concerned that his charitable giving was low. Under present conditions, it shouldn’t be an issue.

The 2010 return is available here:

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/02/rjs_2010_taxes_redacted.pdf

Reno_Dave on February 16, 2012 at 12:38 PM

This.

dukecitygirl on February 16, 2012 at 8:40 PM

And yet, tithing is mentioned many times in the bible. Contraceptives? Yeah, not once.

Boomer_Sooner on February 16, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Neither is the Holy Trinity.

I guess you don’t have the intelligence to infer:

“Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life.” (Cf. Genesis 38:1ff).

Duh.

dukecitygirl on February 16, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Galatians 5:19-21

New International Version (NIV)

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

In the original Greek translation, the word “pharmakeia” is used instead of “witchcraft”. Pharmakeia means mixing potions (pharmaceuticals). The Catholic Church, from the beginning has always interpreted this as the use of abortifacients and/or contraception – which would be applicable for covering up illicit sex acts like fornication and adultery. It’s not surprising that many “witches” or “herbalists” at the time know how to make these concoctions.

dukecitygirl on February 16, 2012 at 8:53 PM

The “Christ” of Mormonism is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

KyMouse on February 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Just what we needed, another bigot pushing another variation of the “Mormons aren’t Christian” attack.

Because you say so? Because you disagree with this or that doctrine? Because you’ve spun this or that doctrine to make it even less palatable and you especially disagree with that? Your argument, even if it weren’t chock full of negative spin, doesn’t even make any logical sense. Let’s say, by way of analogy (it’s an imperfect one, but it will do), some third party puts out a new Harry Potter book detailing some “lost” exploit of the boy wizard. The book is published many years after Rowling’s death and her works have since gone public domain. The publishers claim Rowling wrote it but not everyone believes them. Now, you can claim this book isn’t “canonical” all you want, but it’s just asinine to say to someone who enjoys the new novel that it’s about a DIFFERENT Harry Potter.

CanofSand on February 16, 2012 at 9:57 PM

The tithe was Old Testament law. Once Christ had fulfilled the law, the amount that a person living under the New Testament is free to give as they have been blessed. “… On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income” No specific percentage is specified, but is to be determined in the freedom of the gospel in accordance with one’s conscience and how one has been blessed.

This whole thing is just another smear with no real foundation.

AZfederalist on February 16, 2012 at 11:07 PM

“Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life.” (Cf. Genesis 38:1ff).

Duh.

dukecitygirl on February 16, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Sorry, wrong inference from that reference. The fact was that he was having relations with his brother’s wife (not his own), the only justification for which (and it was not a God-given justification) was to provide an heir for his brother since his brother had died. The offense to God was Onan having relations outside of his own marriage and violating even the secular precept for which he was doing so. Thus, the punishment was for violating the bonds of marriage and being hypocritical using the secular reason for doing so. An analogous incident in the New Testament is the episode of Ananias and Sapphira who were killed when they lied about the money they had received from a sale of land, keeping some for themselves instead of giving it all to the church as others in their group had done. The moral of this incident was not that one must give everything one has to the Lord’s work but that lying about that which was given in order to pump oneself up in the eyes of one’s fellow believers is a grievous sin.

AZfederalist on February 16, 2012 at 11:14 PM

The “Christ” of Mormonism is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

KyMouse on February 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Just what we needed, another bigot pushing another variation of the “Mormons aren’t Christian” attack.

CanofSand on February 16, 2012 at 9:57 PM

You’re entitled to your opinion, but not your facts. What KyMouse said is absolutely and textually true. The description of Jesus in both OT & NT Bible is materially different from who the Book of Mormon and the Koran defines Jesus, both in character & purpose.

For instance, the Koran says Jesus is a prophet and that Mohammed is the greatest of all.

The BoM says Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, to whit, that means Lucifer is also the son of God. It also says that everyone will become a god and one day rule their own earth.

The Bible says Jesus is God’s only begotten Son. This lamb will be the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of man. God created angels, a third of the angels rebelled, led by Lucifer. In the hereafter, the Saints (all saved believers) will rule over Angels. In fact even today, Angels serve both God and watch over us (guardians), they weep when we sin and rejoice when we glorify God.

To say that any two books are congruent with one another would be, well cognitively dissonant.

It would be one thing to have denominations where emphasis is put on disparate debatable issues of faith, it’s quite another to say that fundamental disagreement on WHO Jesus is is somehow bigoted or a smear.

On another level, if being a christian is defined as believing that Jesus is a key character in the holy books, then yeah, all Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Catholics/Orthox, Protestants are christians. But when Christians are defined as a follower of Christ, who is superior to all other, then, no, all of the above are Christians.

This has nothing to do with bigotry. Bigotry only comes into play when one says “I’ll have absolutely nothing to do with you because of your belief and therefore I hate you”. It is not bigotry to discriminate between the 3 books and decide one is true and the other 2 are false.

AH_C on February 16, 2012 at 11:51 PM

until I remember all the big govt stances he’s made injecting the govt into the lives of other American’s because the bible tells me so.

But I’ve no stomach for hypocritical charlatans. A populist religious moralist. Sounds like a great plan guys.

Boomer_Sooner on February 16, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Here’s the problem…you won’t find any, of the 8,000 bills he voted on, what you are accusing him of.
That’s the irony, all these people are so worried about him ramming his beliefs down you throat…and he has never done it…quite the opposite, he voted for contraception, he voted for gay rights.
The problem is, once guys like you make a statement, based on wrong facts, you will never back off…and in fact, you will become more obstinate, just to prove you were right…but you won’t find any bill he passed, to support your statement, and pal, 8,000 bills he voted on, you would think that one, just one would support your claim…good luck, you won’t find it, it’s made up and you have been led by the nose and duped…and that angers you so much, you won’t change your opinion.

right2bright on February 17, 2012 at 12:17 AM

This has nothing to do with bigotry. Bigotry only comes into play when one says “I’ll have absolutely nothing to do with you because of your belief and therefore I hate you”. It is not bigotry to discriminate between the 3 books and decide one is true and the other 2 are false.

AH_C on February 16, 2012 at 11:51 PM

Facts do not matter, they will paint you as a bigot….
Years ago, I thought Mitt was not ready for President, but wanted him to be the VP…I was deemed a bigot…imagine supporting someone to be the second most powerful person in the world, and be called a bigot.
Since than, now that I understand their “game”, individually they get what they deserve.

right2bright on February 17, 2012 at 12:22 AM

The offense to God was Onan having relations outside of his own marriage and violating even the secular precept for which he was doing so. Thus, the punishment was for violating the bonds of marriage and being hypocritical using the secular reason for doing so.

AZfederalist on February 16, 2012 at 11:14 PM

It’s tuff to discern tradition vs doctrine. Modern day Christianity has a different view of marriage than what was taught by Scriptures.

The sin was denying his widowed SIL her due inheritance. The punishment of Sara was her laughing when informed that she would be a mother at her ripe age of 90. Abraham’s sin was unbelief by listening to Sara (yet another morality tale of a guy listening to his wife again) and taking Haggar as the surrogate when God was specific about Sarah bearing the child. As a consequence, Ishmael was driven out in an attempt to preempt any future claim to an inheritance from Abrahm. And that bit of unbelief is the source of the centuries-long blood feud in the ME, but I digress.

If it was “the bonds of marriage” that was the sin, then explain the rest of Gen 38. The part about Judah turning to a “prostitute” while on a business trip. It was actually a trap laid by his widowed DIL due to his refusal to give her to the next in line son. Ultimately, Judah was forced to say Tamar was more just than him. And oh, by the way, Jesus is descended from that one of the “bastard” twins.

1st Chronicles Chp 2
Perez > Hezron > Ram > Amminadab > Nahshon (chief of the tribe of Judah) > Salma > Boaz (Oh yeah, interesting how he and Ruth hooked up) > Obed > Jesse > David (King of Israel) > > > > > > > >

Mary > Jesus .

Now for the modern “traditional” view of marriage.
Nowhere does the Bible emphasize 1 man/1 wife except in the NT regarding the qualifications for Bishops & Deacons. Because one can’t take care of the church while distracted by multiple wives & families to take care of. Better yet, to serve God’s flock, Paul recommended being single. However, I can accept that the 1 wife/1man rule applies to all Christians because we’re all to be servants of God in tending to the church according to our talents. But it is not a “morality” issue as in some kind of carnal sin.

AH_C on February 17, 2012 at 12:30 AM

right2bright on February 17, 2012 at 12:22 AM

You’re right, 99.9% of the time, we can’t even “convert” them but we have to remain diligent in correcting the record, lest other drive-by readers/lurkers assume the misrepresentations to be the truth when unchallenged.

AH_C on February 17, 2012 at 12:34 AM

As a former CPA I would like to know if the tax bill that Santorum is reporting includes the self-employyment tax along with the income tax. That would account for the much higher rate of taxation.

SC.Charlie on February 17, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Most who contribute to charity do not feel the need to then take out an ad in the NYT saying that they did contribute to charity. Since when do most of us feel the need to ‘Give and Brag’? This item of info only has importance if someone is looking for any miniscule action that they can use in a political way.

dahni on February 17, 2012 at 11:56 AM

The word “tithe” appears nowhere in Canon Law, nor is a percentage specified.

steebo77 on February 16, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Wrong, and wrong by ignorance. First, the word tithe appears many times in the Pentateuch:

Leviticus 27:30
And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD’s: it is holy unto the LORD.

Leviticus 27:31
And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.

Leviticus 27:32
And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD.

Numbers 18:24
But the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD, I have given to the Levites to inherit: therefore I have said unto them, Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance.

Numbers 18:26
Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the LORD, even a tenth part of the tithe.

Numbers 18:28
Thus ye also shall offer an heave offering unto the LORD of all your tithes, which ye receive of the children of Israel; and ye shall give thereof the LORD’S heave offering to Aaron the priest.

Deuteronomy 12:6
And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks:

Deuteronomy 12:11
Then there shall be a place which the LORD your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the LORD:

Deuteronomy 12:17
Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thy oil, or the firstlings of thy herds or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows which thou vowest, nor thy freewill offerings, or heave offering of thine hand:

There are more occasions, I figured this was substantial enough of a sample. And the archaic English word tithe is the literal translation meaning specifically the first tenth of one’s earnings, possessions, or labors.

Freelancer on February 17, 2012 at 8:17 PM

But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
~ Matthew 6:3-5

Many Christians never report their tithes in a tax return, and report only other charitable contributions, such as to secular non-profits. They willingly accept the loss of tax benefit in favor of strictly observing the above direction from the Lord. I guarantee that the relatively minuscule tax savings gained from itemizing charitable contributions is far outweighed by increased blessing from Heaven for obedience.

Since Sen. Santorum did report charitable giving on his tax returns, it might be presumed that the reported amounts represent all of said charity. But it cannot be proven or certain either way unless he makes a direct statement to such effect. It really, truly, is not my business what someone else has done with their money, it is between them and their own conscience. I didn’t care about Romney’s taxes, or Gingrich’s, or even Obama’s (other than to wonder what SSN he filed under).

Freelancer on February 17, 2012 at 8:27 PM

My wife and I work approximately 4 months a year for charity – the government takes all of our income during that period and gives it to other people that it deems “needy”. I do not feel a significant obligation to donate directly to charity after that. I particularly do not believe in giving to charities already feeding at the public trough or supporting such programs.

Over50 on February 17, 2012 at 10:08 PM

You’re entitled to your opinion, but not your facts.

AH_C on February 16, 2012 at 11:51 PM

The same goes for everyone, which is why I question why you posted the rest of your comment.

What KyMouse said is absolutely and textually true. The description of Jesus in both OT & NT Bible is materially different from who the Book of Mormon and the Koran defines Jesus, both in character & purpose.

I won’t speak for the Koran, but your assertion is false.

The BoM says Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, to whit, that means Lucifer is also the son of God. It also says that everyone will become a god and one day rule their own earth.

First of all, it doesn’t say that at all. You obviously. Second, the Old Testament calls the angels who fell “sons of God.” Third, the “Jesus is the brother of Lucifer” thing is perhaps THE stereotypical anti-Mormon lie-by-omission; anyone who uses it like you just did is intellectually dishonest. In LDS theology, the Son of God IS the Son of God (a Biblical statement and at many points in history prior to certain manmade and man-enforced creeds were put out, one that was far more widely believed than the Trinity), and we are all of God’s children (another Biblical statement), and some of God’s children fell (again, Biblically supportable). Jesus is metaphorically our father, but He also our brother while God the Father *is* our Father, and all those who fell (to our remorse) are brothers and sisters. To simply paint that as “Jesus is the brother of Satan!!11!!” tells us you’re not an honest broker of information, to say the least.

To say that any two books are congruent with one another would be, well cognitively dissonant.

Only if your interpretation is the only acceptable one. It’s not. Even to other non-LDS Christian faiths. How many Christian sects are there again? Or is YOUR particular brand the only “real” Christian sect?

It would be one thing to have denominations where emphasis is put on disparate debatable issues of faith, it’s quite another to say that fundamental disagreement on WHO Jesus is is somehow bigoted or a smear.

And you, conveniently, get to decide what is “debatable” and what’s flat-out unacceptable or a “fundamental disagreement on WHO Jesus is”, of course. All while you spin said disagreements in a most intellectually bankrupt manner.

This has nothing to do with bigotry. Bigotry only comes into play when one says “I’ll have absolutely nothing to do with you because of your belief and therefore I hate you”. It is not bigotry to discriminate between the 3 books and decide one is true and the other 2 are false.

Bigots spew intellectually dishonest spin, smears, lies, etc., and only more so when the bigot is supposed Christian himself trying to keep that title from all he disapproves of, redefining terms and moving any goal posts as necessary. So it has everything to do with bigotry, no matter how many bigoted pastors tell you otherwise.

CanofSand on February 22, 2012 at 6:51 PM

To say that any two books are congruent with one another would be, well cognitively dissonant.

AH_C on February 16, 2012 at 11:51 PM

I just had to add something about this. ANY two books? Did you really mean ANY two books? Was that a typo? If you did mean what you typed, I have to wonder whether you know what “congruent” and/or “cognitively dissonant” mean. Seriously… no two books can be congruent? Oh, and FYI, do you know what the word bible means? Just because you’ve got it all bound up together doesn’t mean it’s one book, or that it’s always been that way. How can you even make such ridiculous arguments? You remind me of those bashers I’ve run into who try to prove that nothing but what’s in the Bible now is allowed as scripture by pointing to a verse that supposedly says so (of course, it says no such thing) — a verse that was written and taken as scripture by the people long before many other verses in the Bible were written. Don’t see the problem? Think about it.

CanofSand on February 22, 2012 at 7:04 PM

AH_C on February 16, 2012 at 11:51 PM wrote:

The BoM says Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, to whit, that means Lucifer is also the son of God. It also says that everyone will become a god and one day rule their own earth.

CanofSand on February 22, 2012 at 6:51 PM wrote

First of all, it doesn’t say that at all. You obviously. Second, the Old Testament calls the angels who fell “sons of God.” Third, the “Jesus is the brother of Lucifer” thing is perhaps THE stereotypical anti-Mormon lie-by-omission; anyone who uses it like you just did is intellectually dishonest. In LDS theology, the Son of God IS the Son of God (a Biblical statement and at many points in history prior to certain manmade and man-enforced creeds were put out, one that was far more widely believed than the Trinity), and we are all of God’s children (another Biblical statement), and some of God’s children fell (again, Biblically supportable). Jesus is metaphorically our father, but He also our brother while God the Father *is* our Father, and all those who fell (to our remorse) are brothers and sisters. To simply paint that as “Jesus is the brother of Satan!!11!!” tells us you’re not an honest broker of information, to say the least.

Your first point, I’ll deal with last.

But with your second, the ONLY place where angels are called “songs of God” is in Job and only to describe meetings where the angels are standing before God to give their accounting/reports of events on earth. Thus it stands to reason, as practiced by most evangelicals, that this description was metaphorical to distinguish between “good” angels that reflect the sons of God attribute because they are standing before God to give witness to Man’s actions, namely Job, from Satan who also attended the meeting to question the strength of Job’s faith. All other references to angels make it clear that they were created by God to serve, praise God and to carry messages between God and Man. The Bible also makes it clear that the Saints will rule over Angels, which hardly puts Man and Angels on the same level in relationship to God.

Thirdly, while the BOM may not explicitly state that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, it is the logical conclusion arrived at by looking at what the BOM attributes to Angels, Christ, God and Man.

3a) “Son of God IS the Son of God”, we are in agreement.

3b/c) As for “we are all children of God” and “some of God’s children fell”, not so. Adam and Eve were created perfect, but due to Sin, they became mortal and thus the curse of sin is passed to all generations. As the Bible points out repeated, ALL men were born IN sin and deserving of death (come short of the Glory of God). By providing an escape route from the ultimate penalty, only when people accept that grace on God’s terms do they reunite with God to reclaim the “children of God” mantle. The other Biblical reference WRT “children of God” is when categorically referring to the nation of Israel.

3d) “Jesus is metaphorically our father, but He also our brother while God the Father *is* our Father”. Jesus is never referred to “Father” and he’s not our brother within the Christian context. As the NT likes to put it, he is the groom and the church (body of believers) is the bride. Dispensing with the “in-law” titles, then yes both Jesus and the believers has the same Father, but the interdependencies are unique and distinct.

3e) “all those who fell (to our remorse) are brothers and sisters”. Huh? I’m not familiar with that concept and will need clarification. Again, refer to 3b/c above. How can one fall when they are born in sin, thus fallen by nature and by default without having done anything yet?

4) “To simply paint that as “Jesus is the brother of Satan!!11!!” tells us you’re not an honest broker of information, to say the least.” Two things; As I mentioned, this “painting” is the logical conclusion” and as for accusing me of intellectual dishonest is groundless. One does not have to be a bigot or dishonest to have a disagreement over doctrinal differences.

Now back to your 1st point; “First of all, it doesn’t say that at all.” From this Mormon defender site, http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Brother_of_Satan

God the Father also had many other spirit children, created in His image and that of His Only Begotten. These children include all humans born on the earth. Some of God’s children rebelled against Him, and contested the choice of Jesus as Savior. (See D&C 76:25–27). The leader of these children was Lucifer, or Satan. Those spirit children of God who followed Satan in his rebellion against Christ are sometimes referred to as “demons,” or “devils.” (See Moses 4:1–4, Abraham 3:24–28).

Thus, it is technically true to say that Jesus and Satan are “brothers,” in the sense that both have the same spiritual parent, God the Father.

However, critics do not provide the context for the idea that Christ and Lucifer were brothers. Cain and Abel were also brothers, and yet no Bible reader believes that they are spiritual equals or equally admirable. In a similar way, Latter-day Saints do not believe that Jesus and Satan are equals. Nothing is as equally evil as Jesus is good nor is Jesus power the opposite of Satan’s (See Moses 4:3). The Book of Mormon also states that the opposite of Christ and God is nothingness (See 2 Nephi 2 10-15), not Satan.

The scriptures clearly teach the superiority of Jesus over the devil and that Michael (or Adam) and Lucifer (Satan) and their followers fought against each other (See Revelation 12:7-8) to uphold the plan of the Father and the Son. Critics also ignore the Biblical references that imply that Satan is one of the “sons of God.” (See Job:16, Job 2:1)

Finally, while it is true that all mortals share a spiritual parent with Jesus (and Satan, and every other spiritual child of God), we now have a different, more important relationship with Jesus. All of God’s children, save Jesus, have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). In sinning, they abandon and betray their divine heritage and inheritance. Only through Jesus can any mortal return home to God the Father. This return becomes possible when a sinner is born again, and adopted by Christ, who becomes the spiritual father to those whom He redeems. (See Romans 8:14–39.)

Now compare and contrast what I stated above with the bolded parts in what I quoted. Most of the differences in doctrine that I detect comes where the BOM is cited to be at odds with the OT/NT. Ironically, that final NT reference does not quite mean what the author implies. Again here, that last paragraph is a blending of Romans 8 with concepts not found anywhere in the Bible. Specifically the “Christ the Father” issue. In fact, Romans 8 explicitly says we become joint-heirs with Jesus, which goes back to the bridge/groom concept. Also, Romans 8 talks about the attributes of God’s Trinity — Father, Son & Holy Spirit as it relates to our salvation. This is what I call a fundamental difference in doctrine.

Now should I accuse you of intellectual dishonesty if you say you can’t see the differences? You need to be careful about waving that axe around when it comes to theological matters, because people can honestly disagree on matters of faith w/o being bigoted.

‘Nuff said, with regards to the rest of your diatribe that follows.

CanofSand on February 22, 2012 at 7:04 PM wrote:

I just had to add something about this. ANY two books? Did you really mean ANY two books?

Since you’re too dense, I’ll break it down for you in order of appearance.

Book 1 The Bible which contains 66 books (39 OT books and 27 NT books). The OT covers the period of living under the Law and the promise of the Messiah to come. The NT covers the life and times of said Messiah and how we now live under Grace and provides some insight to the end of times.

Book 2: the Koran. In a nutshell, Christ is not the Messiah, rather just a prophet and Mohammed is the last & greatest of prophets. Ironically, as Mohammed was writing this, he tried to convert Jews and Christians to his “revelations” by writing how we were all “related” by scriptures (children of the book). When spurned, his writings turned to cursing both and proscribing jihad, dhimmitude and essentially killing them all for Allah.

Book 3: the BOM. New revelations from the 1800s intended to amend the Bible and supplant it as the final word.

Book 4: Black Jesus/Black Liberation Theology among others but not germane to what we were discussing.

AH_C on February 22, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3