Santorum 2008: America is under attack from Satan

posted at 4:52 pm on February 21, 2012 by Allahpundit

Top story on Drudge as I write this. And to think, some people accuse him of being pro-Romney.

“Satan has his sights on the United States of America!” Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has declared.

“Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition.”…

“This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country – the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age?”

“He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions.”

Rush Limbaugh defended him half-heartedly on his show today, noting that the media thought it was cutesy-poo when evil clown Hugo Chavez compared Bush to the devil a few years ago but conceding that Santorum will “have to deal with it. He’ll have to answer it. I don’t know. It’s just not the kind of stuff you hear a presidential candidate talk about.” At the Post, John Podhoretz wonders if the best replacement for a president who sometimes seems to look down on Americans is … a president who sometimes seems to look down on Americans:

Like many culture warriors, he is disappointed by America and its failings, which — as his controversial views on the morality of birth control demonstrate — he believes stem from an excess of self-indulgence and the elevation of sexual appetite over self-restraint.

There is no way that a man who expresses such a dark view of the American national character can win the presidency.

Remember: This entire process is a job interview in which the candidates are trying to get hired by the electorate. Insulting the electorate and accusing it of spiritual weakness and sinfulness are not the ways to get yourself the job of president.

Click the image below to watch Santorum elaborate on America’s moral failings at a campaign event on Sunday night. Quote: “God gave us rights to life and the freedom to pursue His will. That’s what the moral foundation of our country is. So we would have the freedom, the liberty, not to do what we want to do but to do what we ought to do.” Defining freedom as “the freedom to pursue God’s will” certainly would make for an interesting campaign plank; Democrats would tread lightly in attacking it, but then, if even some on the right think Santorum railing against Satanic “sensuality” is kooky, they can afford to. The most striking thing to me when he discourses on morals is how passionate he is about it — so much so that it makes me wonder why his great ambition is to run for president instead of a job more narrowly tailored to his passion. That’s also why it’s hard to believe him and his supporters when they insist that he wouldn’t try to ban contraception. Why wouldn’t he? If we’re in a struggle with Satan against the corrupting influence of sensuality and at risk of betraying “what the moral foundation of our country is,” why wouldn’t a President Santorum wield his power to stop it? I sure am curious to see how the libertarian vote shakes out in November if it ends up being him against the mastermind of Obamanomics. Gary Johnson: Ten percent or bust!

Update: Commenters are noting that Santorum couldn’t ban contraceptives as president even if he wanted to. Indeed: The Warren Court’s Griswold decision makes that impossible and it’s unlikely in the extreme that there are five votes on the Roberts Court to reverse it. I used contraception as an example only because it’s been in the news lately and because Santorum’s said before that he has no regulatory designs on it. But the point stands. Why wouldn’t a president who’s passionate about America’s perceived moral failings want to use his power to whatever extent he could to reverse them?

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 9 10 11

It is all political and the defense of Rick here (explaining the religious beliefs in context) are done for political reasons, not religious ones.

Elisa on February 22, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Fair enough.

Rick Santorum is a nice guy, but he has a perception problem. I believe it’s so bad that he can’t possibly overcome it. Most of the country sees him as the repressed but obsessed sweater vest guy. For whatever reason, he picked up Obama’s gauntlet and in the process threw gasoline on that fire.

Yeah, this attack is unfair, but it’s nothing compared to what Obama’s machine would do with him. Saving the country is the goal, not winning the primary.

ElectricPhase on February 22, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Glad we could come to an understanding. lol

I agree with you that winning the general is the main thing and getting rid of Obama.

I just happen to believe that Rick is our best shot at that. The media hasn’t set their sights on Romney yet and I don’t think he will withstand it when they do. Our past moderates didn’t in other elections and Romney will also be demonized, for his Mormonism and for being a Wall St guy and part of the problem, not the solution. All false talking points, but Romney doesn’t have what it takes to overcome it because he is boring and doesn’t have that likability that unfortunately is necessary in a general election. I know it is all stupid, but that is how things are.

I think you are right in your assessment of how Rick is perceived right now. But I also think that he will be able to change that when people get to know him. He will be likable and considered reasonable and mainstream and he can win.

And if Republicans of all wings of the party and of all faith unite behind Santorum if he is the nominee, Obama will be history.

Elisa on February 22, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Wow! The degree to which your mind has achieved intelligence is obvious. When you tried “bullying” people like this in grade school – you got your butt handed to you, A LOT, didn’t you? Thought so – people like you never learn, I remember standing over them in grade school – while they lay on the ground wondering what just happened and why.

No – I believe I’ll exercise my Right of Free Speech, a right most liberals – who are people exactly like you – would take away from me, and point out the flaws and hyposcrisy in what people say.

You know – people like you.

williamg on February 22, 2012 at 11:44 AM

This is not a government-owned or government-operated site. There is no such thing as free speech here. You don’t have the right to say your opinion; you have the privilege.

I echo an earlier commenter who urged you to seek help.

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 12:29 PM

It is all political and the defense of Rick here (explaining the religious beliefs in context) are done for political reasons, not religious ones.

Elisa on February 22, 2012 at 12:00 PM

You are spinning for him. This is what he said:
“We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”
Put the happiest face you want on it. It’s an insulting and stupid thing to say. Just think what team obama can do with what he has been giving them.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Good point. No, apparently a lot of people want to turn the US into a USSR, outlawing all private religious speech and putting the lot of us believers into gulags. I guess some people are still nostalgic for the Cold War… the losing side of it.

theCork on February 22, 2012 at 12:17 PM

LOL!

alchemist19 on February 22, 2012 at 12:45 PM

You are spinning for him. This is what he said:
“We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”
Put the happiest face you want on it. It’s an insulting and stupid thing to say. Just think what team obama can do with what he has been giving them.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM

It’s amazing that some people still don’t understand the concept of “TV ad fodder”, isn’t it?

alchemist19 on February 22, 2012 at 12:47 PM

You’re not from Salem, Mass., are you?

kingsjester on February 22, 2012 at 10:56 AM

I would tell you but I am afraid Santorum would roast me.

nathor on February 22, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Put the happiest face you want on it. It’s an insulting and stupid thing to say. Just think what team obama can do with what he has been giving them.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM

You’ve said this perhaps half a dozen times, using various perjoratives. We get your point. You’re wrong, but we get your point.

Team Obama won’t have time to do this, because Santorum will be attacking him on Obamacare and energy independence and Solyndra and Keystone and Fast and Furious and U.S. troops in four African countries and bailouts and cronyism and trillions in debt and unemployment and gas prices and …

I mean, sure, they’ll demagogue the points, but Santorum has shown he can handle it. And if not – if we as a country choose a man who is destroying us because we’re uncomfortable with Santorum’s religious stand, then we deserve everything we get.

AJsDaddie on February 22, 2012 at 1:06 PM

No – I believe I’ll exercise my Right of Free Speech…

williamg on February 22, 2012 at 11:44 AM

That protects you from government censorship, you mindless blob of sputum. This is a private website, and your privilege to speak can be rescinded with little effort.

So, I repeat: if you don’t like what’s on this site, get the f**k out.

MadisonConservative on February 22, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Well – I see that your demonstration of intelligence hasn’t improved any, and you’re still one of the guys I ended up standing over in grade school after they “popped off” – forgetting that, maybe they weren’t that tough. You feel pretty powerful hiding behind that keyboard though, don’t you? You also contradict yourself: you’re not “repeating yourself” above, because the first time you said “expletive deleted” off” – NOt: “get the ‘expletive deleted’ out”.

If you want to argue semantics – fine, please allow me to alter my previous statement:

“No – I believe I’ll exercise my Privilege of Speech, a privilege most liberals – who are people exactly like you – would take away from me, and point out the flaws and hyposcrisy in what people say.

You know – people like you.”

My privilege is held in place by my “following the speech rules” of this website. People like liberals – and like yourself and Dante – would like people like me to be censored or silenced for expressing opinions that they disagree with. I don’t believe that the people who run this website are that short-sighted, filled with that much hatred or that unethical.

Tough for folks like you. You can read my posts – which comply with the rules of this website – or not.

The choice, though – is yours and is all about you.

williamg on February 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM

williamg on February 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Is this Cpt. Kirk’s other account?

alchemist19 on February 22, 2012 at 1:14 PM

My privilege is held in place by my “following the speech rules” of this website. People like liberals – and like yourself and Dante – would like people like me to be censored or silenced for expressing opinions that they disagree with. I don’t believe that the people who run this website are that short-sighted, filled with that much hatred or that unethical.

williamg on February 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM

This is comic gold.

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 1:24 PM

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 11:10 AM

I can point to several Protestant denominations who have jumped the shark in their doctrine, and are now preaching contrary to biblical principles. There are many professed Catholics who do not adhere to their church doctrine, but their doctrine has remained the same.

We left our last church/denomination because they dropped their biblically based, Christ centered worship in favor of a social justice, pro-homosexual agenda that was abhorrent to us. The pastor of that church actually signed on to a document promoting “sexual freedom for all” which included the “right” of Christians to engage in pre-marital sex, heterosexual or homosexual, and access to abortion and birth control. Many Christian denominations are not only tolerating, but embracing the sin of homosexuality…including the installation of homosexuals as pastors.

I am not a Catholic, because I disagree with much of their doctrine, but Santorum is right about Protestantism.

JannyMae on February 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Glad we could come to an understanding. lol

I agree with you that winning the general is the main thing and getting rid of Obama.

I just happen to believe that Rick is our best shot at that.

Elisa on February 22, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Do you believe that Santorum can stay on message on the campaign trail and keep hammering Obama with the economy? I have doubts, given how easily Obama was able to manipulate him into a SoCon food fight just now.

ElectricPhase on February 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Glad we could come to an understanding. lol

I agree with you that winning the general is the main thing and getting rid of Obama.

I just happen to believe that Rick is our best shot at that.

Elisa on February 22, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Do you believe that Santorum can stay on message on the campaign trail and keep hammering Obama with the economy? I have doubts, given how easily Obama was able to manipulate him into a SoCon food fight just now.

ElectricPhase on February 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

I do think he can stay on message. They are trying to get him to trip up and he has good and reasoned answers. People will see that. And he is the one who keeps saying, let’s talk about the economy.

More importantly, he is our best hope right now. They will make Romney and Newt look even worse, if they are our nominee. Plus Romney takes 2 main things off the table as far as criticizing Obama. Romneycare and the Wall Street bailout.

Elisa on February 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM

More importantly, he is our best hope right now. They will make Romney and Newt look even worse, if they are our nominee. Plus Romney takes 2 main things off the table as far as criticizing Obama. Romneycare and the Wall Street bailout.

Elisa on February 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM

This +100

AJsDaddie on February 22, 2012 at 2:14 PM

This is what Allahpundit does – he INCITES for The Liberals and The Terrorists. He CARRIES WATER for them under – what HE thinks – is the “guise” of being Pro-Conservative.

williamg on February 22, 2012 at 9:50 AM

I don’t believe that the people who run this website are that short-sighted, filled with that much hatred or that unethical.

williamg on February 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM

RINO in Name Only on February 22, 2012 at 2:31 PM

1) I didn’t hear him say that protestants were evil. He said that America was found by protestants on a Judeo-Christian ethics, which we have fallen away from.

He didn’t say they were evil…but he implied it with: “We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

2) I didn’t hear the bit about ‘freedom is the freedom to do right’ — but I have to wonder at the context. Did he mean “It is our personal responsibility to use freedom wisely”? Or did he mean “It is the government’s job to decide what right and wrong are, and then impose this understanding on the people?”

He was speaking of the libertarian view that people should be able to act and do as they wish in their private lives according to THEIR beliefs as long as they harm no one else with those acts. It is Santorums’ belief that as a Christian nation our government has the responsibility to say to those private acts/beliefs…”This is right or wrong” and to make law to enforce those standards. (Example: He criticized the court decision that prohibition of birth control in the state of CT were illegal in the face of an individual Constitutional right of privacy in such matters. Griswold v. CT. ) He believes there is no such individual right and the States may make such laws as they see fit or not. Scary.

I agree with the rest of your post Brian…but I’ll be voting for Romney because he has promised to follow his 59 point plan for a smaller government, balanced budget and job growth with the help of a Conservative Congress. He has always lived up to his promises…regardless of whether one likes all of those promises! He ain’t perfect, but he’s the best we’ve got and a very talented man who just may surprise a lot of folks here. He is certainly the only one who can give BHO fits in the election and give us a fighting chance to take our country back.

camaraderie on February 22, 2012 at 2:38 PM

(Example: He criticized the court decision that prohibition of birth control in the state of CT were illegal in the face of an individual Constitutional right of privacy in such matters. Griswold v. CT. ) He believes there is no such individual right and the States may make such laws as they see fit or not. Scary.

camaraderie on February 22, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Scary?
Most so-called “libertarians” at least pretend they care about the rule of law, and it is clear that there is no such “penumbra” or “emanation” in the actual Constitution. Most people who care about the rule of law oppose Griswold and it’s offspring, Roe v. Wade, because they are key cases in which the Supreme Court invented “Constitutional” rights on the basis of “because we said so”.
Also anyone who has read the Constitution knows that states are indeed empowered to make such laws as they see fit.

joe_doufu on February 22, 2012 at 3:02 PM

RINO in Name Only on February 22, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Well – all I have to say is that you and several of your friends here at HA are EXACTLY where the Mainstream Media WANTS you to be:

Distracted – and contributing to the tearing-down of conservatives

williamg on February 22, 2012 at 3:12 PM

If you want to argue semantics

williamg on February 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM

It’s not semantics. It’s a matter of actually knowing what your rights are. If you consider such a thing “semantics”, then you treat the Constitution no better than the toilet paper you use to wipe your mouth after all the s**t comes out of it. F**k off, troll.

MadisonConservative on February 22, 2012 at 3:12 PM

The Santorum Sweep

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/22e513f4cb/santorum-sweep

Santorum’s “three-state sweep” earlier this month was essentially a beauty contest. The caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota were nonbinding, which means the delegates can vote for whichever candidate they choose at the Republican National Convention. Missouri’s primary awarded no delegates.

Iowa’s caucuses are also nonbinding. In Nevada, delegates are technically assigned proportionally, but there is no process for assigning state delegates to the Republican candidates.

That means that, so far, only New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida have definitively awarded delegates.

With that in mind, here is where the count stands:

Mitt Romney: 59 delegates*
Newt Gingrich: 23 delegates
Ron Paul: 3 delegates
Rick Santorum: 0 delegates

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/funny-or-die-rick-santorum-surge-video-2012-2#ixzz1n8yNBXSY

mountainaires on February 22, 2012 at 3:20 PM

If you want to argue semantics

williamg on February 22, 2012 at 1:09 PMIf you want to argue semantics

williamg on February 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM

It’s not semantics. It’s a matter of actually knowing what your rights are. If you consider such a thing “semantics”, then you treat the Constitution no better than the toilet paper you use to wipe your mouth after all the s**t comes out of it. F**k off, troll.

MadisonConservative on February 22, 2012 at 3:12 PM

No – in the case you cited – it was semantics. Because I don’t use words the way you do – which I obviously don’t since I don’t need to use as many of the “4-Letter” variety – does not make you right, nor does it mean I don’t understand the Constitution.

I corrected the language to address your objection – but my point never changed. Neither did the correctness of it. I have the privlege of pointing out contradiction and disembling like yours here – so I will. That’s something you’re powerless over. A tough thing for people like you to accept, I know from experiencing people like you before. I used to end up standing over them – remember?

Your response – as I would have predicted – illustrates your continuing display of intelligence, and the kind of response most used by people who can’t win their arguments on principles.

You try to bully people. We had a name for people like that where I grew up – and, once tested live and in person, usually discovered that there was no substance or courage to them. Kind of like you.

williamg on February 22, 2012 at 3:23 PM

mountainaires on February 22, 2012 at 3:20 PM

If the situation was reversed and Romney had won three caucuses you’d be posting about Mittmentum!!

Don’t matter yet. A couple more weeks and then things get interesting. But if Romney drops Michigan or Arizona, we’ll be able to use the spin in here to power a small city.

AJsDaddie on February 22, 2012 at 3:30 PM

You try to bully people. We had a name for people like that where I grew up – and, once tested live and in person, usually discovered that there was no substance or courage to them. Kind of like you.

williamg on February 22, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Were you testing people like MadisonConservative on the playground yesterday at recess?

alchemist19 on February 22, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Just think what team obama can do with what he has been giving them.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Yeah, not smart for a pol -but true. I wouldn’t fear Obama when defending it -maybe Rev wright could help, but the biggest pro-death president in history can hardly defend his faith against any who understand Christianity (not the home- made versions)

Don L on February 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM

AJsDaddie

Team Obama won’t have time to do this, because Santorum will be attacking him …

If Rick complains in the forrest and no one media report it does he make a sound? Rick Santorum is going to be drowned out with a chorus of “you are a religious zealot” and the worst part will be that it’s not untrue.

I mean, sure, they’ll demagogue the points, but Santorum has shown he can handle it.

He has only shown that he is not Mitt Romney.

And if not – if we as a country choose a man who is destroying us because we’re uncomfortable with Santorum’s religious stand, then we deserve everything we get.

Speak for yourself.

I give money, last time around it was close to the maximum. I give time, make calls, drive people to polls. I wont be doing any of that for santorum. If he is the nominee it will be a reverse Mondale.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 4:30 PM

I am not a Catholic, because I disagree with much of their doctrine, but Santorum is right about Protestantism.

JannyMae on February 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Firstly, no he was right about your old church. Secondly, it;s s stupid, bigoted thing for a politician to say.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 4:32 PM

No – in the case you cited – it was semantics.

williamg on February 22, 2012 at 3:23 PM

No, it wasn’t. A lot of belligerent, stupid a*sholes like you scream “MY RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH” on private websites all the time. You’re just another one of them. You’re an idiot who doesn’t know their Constitution, yet hides behind it when they’re acting like a douchebag. You disgrace those who hold the Constitution dear by claiming to be amongst their number. You’re not wanted.

MadisonConservative on February 22, 2012 at 4:36 PM

You try to bully people.

williamg on February 22, 2012 at 3:23 PM

And you have a lot of gall to say this when you showed up and started bullying one of the main writers that makes this website possible.

Again…f**k off, slimeball.

MadisonConservative on February 22, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Firstly, no he was right about your old church. Secondly, it;s s stupid, bigoted thing for a politician to say.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Just because you repeat yourself doesn’t make it any more right. It wasn’t stupid, it wasn’t bigoted. It wasn’t politically correct, but there are a whole bunch of us out here who think PC contributes to the demise of our country.

Once again, Sport: he said that some Protestant churches are skewing their doctrine away from Christianity. And as we’ve seen here, even from some Protestants, he ain’t wrong.

AJsDaddie on February 22, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Speak for yourself.

I give money, last time around it was close to the maximum. I give time, make calls, drive people to polls. I wont be doing any of that for santorum. If he is the nominee it will be a reverse Mondale.

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 4:30 PM

If Santorum wins the primary you won’t do everything possible to get him elected? Okay. Just so we’re clear.

AJsDaddie on February 22, 2012 at 5:04 PM

If Santorum wins the primary you won’t do everything possible to get him elected? Okay. Just so we’re clear.

AJsDaddie on February 22, 2012 at 5:04 PM

NOOOO WAY IN HECK!!!

jimver on February 22, 2012 at 5:09 PM

If Santorum wins the primary you won’t do everything possible to get him elected? Okay. Just so we’re clear.

AJsDaddie on February 22, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Another fool who puts party over principle. You and your kind are exactly why the country is in the mess it’s in.

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 5:19 PM

If Santorum wins the primary you won’t do everything possible to get him elected? Okay. Just so we’re clear.

AJsDaddie on February 22, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Another fool who puts party over principle. You and your kind are exactly why the country is in the mess it’s in.

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Who are you going to vote for? Some yet-to-be-named third party? Obama? Or, by doing nothing – Obama?

Seriously, you call me a fool? You say my kind is why the country is in this state? Pfffft. At least I have my priorities. I vote for whoever wins the primary. Anybody who doesn’t is a screaming lunatic.

AJsDaddie on February 22, 2012 at 5:28 PM

“So I have a question for all HotAir Mittbots. DOES SATAN EXIST?
social-justice on February 21, 2012 at 5:11 PM”

See what you did? You posed the question so you’re either a Christian or a Romney supporter.

While Evil is a universal concept, Satan is not. The Judeo part of Judeo-Christian values does not subscribe to the existence of Satan, for example. But frankly, it’s personal, as faith is personal.

We want leaders with the moral values which are secure enough that they can allow others the freedom to disagree. After all, Santorum would be the President over Romney voters, and Satanists too.

contrarytopopularbelief on February 22, 2012 at 5:29 PM

We want leaders with the moral values which are secure enough that they can allow others the freedom to disagree. After all, Santorum would be the President over Romney voters, and Satanists too.

contrarytopopularbelief on February 22, 2012 at 5:29 PM

When did Santorum propose taking away the “right to disagree”?

Dreadnought on February 22, 2012 at 5:37 PM

The statements and arguments presented by atheists here constitute more in the way of ‘minion service’(to Satan), than anything Rick Santorum has said.
listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 9:52 AM

its around 900 comments now this thread, and my comment still seems accurate.
and yes, the REAL satan is putting us atheists to slander santorum! how did you discover that? it was supposed to be secret!
nathor on February 22, 2012 at 10:47 AM

I gave up on waiting for a response (that, and I had things to do). So I finally come back to this.

It’s more of a secret to you, than it is to me; you don’t believe he exists anymore than you believe God does.

And I stand by my statement that the ‘divide’ here is between atheists and devout Christians, with a few “lukewarm” Christians in the mix.

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 5:52 PM

I like how the media digging up speeches made to religious groups from 2008 is an indication to so many of you that Santorum talks too much about religion and morality instead of the “important” election issues. You people are being played, and not just by the media. The ground you stand on – indignation toward people espousing MAINSTREAM Christian views – was planted with corrupt seeds and nourished for many decades by the Progressives (and even self-proclaimed Communists), and now, to their glee, so-called conservatives are helping them bring forth its fruit!

CanofSand on February 22, 2012 at 6:02 PM

We want leaders with the moral values which are secure enough that they can allow others the freedom to disagree. After all, Santorum would be the President over Romney voters, and Satanists too.

contrarytopopularbelief on February 22, 2012 at 5:29 PM

When did Santorum propose taking away the “right to disagree”?

Dreadnought on February 22, 2012 at 5:37 PM

This +100. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, Santorum voted for the Abortion Clinic Access Bill, which is diametrically opposed to his religious beliefs. Thus, when the rubber hits the road, Santorum chooses Constitution over conscience, as he has sworn to do.

Part of the problem is that now we’re going to get away from this “everything is okay” mentality to one that says, “Yes, you can do that. It’s wrong, but you can do it.” I wonder if the folks with a weak moral compass find that makes them a bit queasy?

AJsDaddie on February 22, 2012 at 6:04 PM

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

Doesn’t get a whole lot simpler than that.

Satan causes individuals to fall. Big government economic illiterates like Rick Santorum cause governments to fall. Not Satan.
JohnGalt23 on February 22, 2012 at 11:07 AM

The First Amendment was to keep government influence out of religion.

It was NOT to keep RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE OUT OF GOVERNMENT.

I reject your last line as regards the “economic illiteracy” of Rick Santorum.
I AGRREE however, with your statement that Satan causes individuals to fall (or fail?).
But it’s NOT too much to say that Satan focuses more attention upon, and attacks against individuals in positions of governmental authority and/or influence.
That’s how I believe Rick Santorum meant it.

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I wouldn’t want President Obama legislating Liberation Theology from his church.
Tater Salad on February 22, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Too late. : (

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 6:18 PM

I am not a Catholic, because I disagree with much of their doctrine, but Santorum is right about Protestantism.
JannyMae on February 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

That whole post was well stated, JannyMae.
Saddened to hear about the church you were “driven out of”, but you did the right thing.

Firstly, no he was right about your old church. Secondly, it;s s stupid, bigoted thing for a politician to say.
V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Rick did not condemn ALL Protestant Churches, and for the audience he was addressing his words were appropriate.

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Guess I’ve got to wait for ya’ll to get back from supper.

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Sarah Palin or four more years of Barry’s destruction.

Colony14 on February 22, 2012 at 6:59 PM

I like how the media digging up speeches made to religious groups from 2008 is an indication to so many of you that Santorum talks too much about religion and morality instead of the “important” election issues.

CanofSand on February 22, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Ha ha! I hadn’t thought of that, but you’re right, of course. If the last comment they can Drudge up is back in 2008, then there’s not a lot of there, there.

AJsDaddie on February 22, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Find a better church.

Why?

Again, you have surveyed a whole lot of churches? I haven’t seen any of that.

I have personally surveyed many churches. I’ve walked in their doorway. I’ve visited their websites and read their doctrinal beliefs. But I’ll make a correction from most to many. Thank you.

Since you disagree with Roman Catholics and Santorum on what the gospel is, would you vote for a Protestant presidential candidate that announced Catholics were not Christian?

V7_Sport on February 22, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Can you provide me a link to a video or transcript of that saying? I still haven’t seen it. I’m not being sarcastic. I want to read it in context. As I was telling an atheist just yesterday, that’s Roman Catholic doctrine.

Just because Santorum says Protestants are not Christians doesn’t sway me one way. I like a man who is honest enough to keep his beliefs on his sleeve which says nothing of how he’d run an administration. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Roman Catholics are not Christian. Okay, don’t vote for me for President or Town Treasurer.

shick on February 22, 2012 at 7:40 PM

No – in the case you cited – it was semantics.

williamg on February 22, 2012 at 3:23 PM

No, it wasn’t. A lot of belligerent, stupid a*sholes like you scream “MY RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH” on private websites all the time.

It was semantics. Let me help YOU with another way to look at it:

If you want to call it a “privilege” – then it’s one that YOU don’t to take away from me, just because you disagree with my opinion. YOU do not hold the giving and taking of the privilege in YOUR hand: YOU are powerless over it.

In that regard – my speech, as long as it complies with the website rules, has the FORCE of a Right from your perspective: it’s not something YOU get to decide on or take away.

From your language – I can tell that you have an intellectual problem processing or expressing thoughts that have the complexity that these do – but that does not make you right. It makes these ideas and principles correct and you unable to express them. Well – other than a continuous stream of profanity.

Part of that “privilege”, by the way – is the “privilege” to disagree with the poster and point out inconsistencies, within the boundaries of the website rules. That is not “bullying” – it’s following the rules. For several good examples of attempts at “bullying”, failures though they were – just see any of your posts.

williamg on February 22, 2012 at 10:45 PM

One thing is for certain, though:

The commenters here and the poster have helped to accomplish their desired end: The public tearing-down of another good, conservative. Anyone watch the “debate” tonight?

I don’t find that particularly helpful to the cause of Conservatism. Anyone else?

williamg on February 22, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Who are you going to vote for? Some yet-to-be-named third party? Obama? Or, by doing nothing – Obama?

Seriously, you call me a fool? You say my kind is why the country is in this state? Pfffft. At least I have my priorities. I vote for whoever wins the primary. Anybody who doesn’t is a screaming lunatic.

AJsDaddie on February 22, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Yes, I call you a fool. A dangerous fool because you don’t use your head. You may as well be an automaton, voting for whomever has an R after his name.

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 11:51 PM

“When did Santorum propose taking away the “right to disagree”?
Dreadnought on February 22, 2012 at 5:37 PM”

If you agree with Santorum’s faith and morality views you’re not going to be able to see what kind of infringement his approach is.

Furthermore, the question posed was asking if we believed in Satan. Is the answer “No” a valid one to someone like Santorum? Because he takes it too far when he then condemns Protestants and depicts them in an evil light. Do you see how these unapologetic views are polarizing? How they infringe on freedoms, or how his desire to legislate his personal morals strips others from the right to disagreement?

contrarytopopularbelief on February 22, 2012 at 11:55 PM

“Santorum chooses Constitution over conscience, as he has sworn to do.

AJsDaddie on February 22, 2012 at 6:04 PM”

It would be nice if he would run in such a fashion that reflects that.

Watching him pose as a religious leader, or morality police is a distraction, and suggests a compulsive need to interject that aspect of his life.

contrarytopopularbelief on February 23, 2012 at 12:00 AM

Yes, I call you a fool. A dangerous fool because you don’t use your head. You may as well be an automaton, voting for whomever has an R after his name.

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 11:51 PM

Ahh! There it is! Thanks for clearing that up – you’re an Obamabot! Only someone DEDICATED to the Re-Election of Obama would say something like that!

Appreciate the heads-up!

williamg on February 23, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Rick did not condemn ALL Protestant Churches, and for the audience he was addressing his words were appropriate.

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 6:37 PM

He condemned mainstream Protestantism as unChristian and that is never appropriate, ESPECIALLY to an audience of Catholics.

V7_Sport on February 23, 2012 at 5:38 AM

Re.shick

Why?

If you are unhappy with the one you are in you owe it to yourself to find a better one. I left one myself and found another that was closer to the Church I was raised in. ( Presbyterian to Baptist ) Stilll, I wouldn’t condemn the one I left as unChristian.

I have personally surveyed many churches. I’ve walked in their doorway. I’ve visited their websites and read their doctrinal beliefs. But I’ll make a correction from most to many. Thank you

And you found them to be un-Christian. Not just an issue with the detaild that the observe but actually unChristian?

Can you provide me a link to a video or transcript of that saying? I still haven’t seen it. I’m not being sarcastic. I want to read it in context. As I was telling an atheist just yesterday, that’s Roman Catholic doctrine.

I got it off Drudge. To be fair it’s not the whole context, still, it’s a pretty insulting thing to say in any context.

ust because Santorum says Protestants are not Christians doesn’t sway me one way. I like a man who is honest enough to keep his beliefs on his sleeve which says nothing of how he’d run an administration. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Roman Catholics are not Christian. Okay, don’t vote for me for President or Town Treasurer.

I wasn’t going to vote for him anyway, but announcing that mainstream Protestants are “gone from the world of Christianity as I see it” (without Christ there is no salvation) is so over the top that it’s crazy. I don’t think this is Roman Catholic doctrine. I think this is just his view.

V7_Sport on February 23, 2012 at 5:53 AM

If you are unhappy with the one you are in you owe it to yourself to find a better one.

I never said I was in a state of being unhappy with my current church although that has been true in the past.

And you found them to be un-Christian. Not just an issue with the detaild that the observe but actually unChristian?

Yes. When a church stops preaching of sin and a necessity for a savior it no longer presents “good news” (the gospel) for bad news (damnation). Instead it presents a good news from ones physical state in the world. This is a completely worldly message.

“gone from the world of Christianity as I see it” (without Christ there is no salvation) is so over the top that it’s crazy. I don’t think this is Roman Catholic doctrine. I think this is just his view.

V7_Sport on February 23, 2012 at 5:53 AM

That’s does seem over the top. I agree. I still want to check it out for myself. It would be interesting to know how he would defend this statement today.

If you wouldn’t vote for Santorum then I’m wondering who you would vote for. I hope it’s not Paul.

shick on February 23, 2012 at 7:35 AM

Re.shick

Yes. When a church stops preaching of sin and a necessity for a savior it no longer presents “good news” (the gospel) for bad news (damnation). Instead it presents a good news from ones physical state in the world. This is a completely worldly message.

I am a sinner. Pointing my finger at people who have professed that that have accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior and telling them that they are not Christian is not only not credible but wrong on many levels. I can have issues with they way they practice their faith, I can disagree, argue and be a general pain in the rear if I wish to, but I think it would be fundamentally wrong and against the teachings of Jesus Christ to exclude people who want to be included.
…And I’m not even a politician who is running for office.

That’s does seem over the top. I agree. I still want to check it out for myself. It would be interesting to know how he would defend this statement today.

This is what he said about the story I linked to previously.

If you wouldn’t vote for Santorum then I’m wondering who you would vote for. I hope it’s not Paul.

I have gravitated to Romney. I’m not thrilled with any of them but by process of elimination and perceived electability I’m going to pull the lever for Mitt. I couldn’t vote for Ron Paul because of his naive foreign policy and his blaming the USA for 1400 years of islamic terrorism.

V7_Sport on February 23, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Pointing my finger at people who have professed that that have accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior and telling them that they are not Christian is not only not credible but wrong on many levels.

I agree that it’s wrong on many levels but I’m not sure if this eliminates him from the playing field for me. After all, Roman Catholic doctrine states that those who deny its dogmas are anathema.

Likewise, early Mormon documents show similar statements against non-mormons.

I think it would be fundamentally wrong and against the teachings of Jesus Christ to exclude people who want to be included.

I think we would both agree that want alone hardly classifies someone as a Christian. Are Mormon’s christian? Are Jehovah’s Witness christian? They want to be included?

I think you would agree with me that what defines a Christian is more than declaring that one has accepted him as his/her Lord and savior.

This is what he said about the story I linked to previously.

Thank you. Until I follow your link, I’m still voting for Santorum.

I’m not thrilled with any of them..

Agreed.

I couldn’t vote for Ron Paul because of his naive foreign policy and his blaming the USA for 1400 years of islamic terrorism.

V7_Sport on February 23, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Few.

shick on February 23, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 9 10 11