Santorum talks about Satan destroying America

[TimCallahan]

Besides academia, labor unions are another of the Christian right's whipping boys as satanic influences corrupting our nation. O course, organized labor is also a favorite target for GOP attacks. Recently, Romney attacked Santorum as Labor's favorite candidate. This L.A. Times article effectively debunks such nonsense.

ETA: just in case you think that the mention of labor unions is a bit off-topic, consider that, while prominent evangelical minister John MacArthur says it's not necessarily anti-Christian to be a member of the labor union, he does say that Christians should look to Ephesians 6 for the ideal relationship between employers and employees. Here's what he's referring to (Eph. 6:5 - 9):

Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ; not in the way of eye-service as men-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with good will as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is slave or free. Masters do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

While Ephesians (probably not from the hand of Paul) does tell masters to be kind to their slaves, this passage - seen by MacArthur as the ideal in labor relations - deals with slaves being obedient to masters - not exactly a call to engage in collective bargaining.

It's interesting to note that, immediately following this passage is the part of Ephesians 6 dealing with spiritual warfare and putting on "the whole armor of God."

So, the ideal of a non-satanic America would be one in which academics were muzzled and laborers were reduced to slaves.

 

[Roadtoad]

Reading the LA Times article points out one of Santorum's primary faults: He lives almost completely in his own little world.

And like most folks like that, his is a fantasy world where, no doubt, his belly's flat, his hair is full, the women swoon in his presence, and strong men weep over his dynamic leadership. (Try not to vomit regarding that previous line.) It's what he wants to believe, and it's reinforced by the crew of sycophants that surround him, promoting his agenda.

Realities are harsh. Santorum won't face them. There's no reason for him to during the primary since most of those who vote at this point represent the Republican base. This is the kind of thing they seem to enjoy hearing. What he won't deal with is coming down the line in November, and he's going to have to demonstrate he's willing to deal with it now.

In the end, this is one of the reasons you'll see Obama re-elected in November.

 

[Ladewig]

Reading the LA Times article points out one of Santorum's primary faults: He lives almost completely in his own little world.

That sounds like a plausible hypothesis to describe his statements and choices.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Reading the LA Times article points out one of Santorum's primary faults: He lives almost completely in his own little world.

And like most folks like that, his is a fantasy world where, no doubt, his belly's flat, his hair is full, the women swoon in his presence, and strong men weep over his dynamic leadership. (Try not to vomit regarding that previous line.) It's what he wants to believe, and it's reinforced by the crew of sycophants that surround him, promoting his agenda.

Realities are harsh. Santorum won't face them.

What a strange phenomenon!

At least part of his religious morality has to involve the importance of honesty, yet there's no way he could believe everything he himself has said. The made-up claims of involuntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, for example--where could that have possibly come from that he would believe it without checking the claim before repeating it as true?

I think there might be something more going on than him not facing reality. I think he believes in the Truth (with a capital "T") that somehow justifies taking liberties with the conventional truth. At some level, he has to believe that some grander end justifies the means (which include making stuff up or at least repeating stuff that is outrageously unbelievable without doing even a little bit of fact-checking).

 

[Complexity]

I doubt it very much.

Being a conservative Catholic is a very different thing than being a radical Calvinist or whatever.

But they're all utterly crazy and interchangeably evil.

With regard to the comment on Limbaugh's hind-brain - that wasn't a zit; it was a hickey.

 

[respect]

Personally I am more concerned about the Loch Ness Monster and one or more bigfoots creating some sort of league of evil.

 

[Roadtoad]

What a strange phenomenon!

At least part of his religious morality has to involve the importance of honesty, yet there's no way he could believe everything he himself has said. The made-up claims of involuntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, for example--where could that have possibly come from that he would believe it without checking the claim before repeating it as true?

I think there might be something more going on than him not facing reality. I think he believes in the Truth (with a capital "T") that somehow justifies taking liberties with the conventional truth. At some level, he has to believe that some grander end justifies the means (which include making stuff up or at least repeating stuff that is outrageously unbelievable without doing even a little bit of fact-checking).

Obviously it's been a while since you've cracked the cover of Reader's Digest. The euthanasia claim has been made multiple times in their pages.

As to taking liberties with the truth, that seems to be a common theme within the Evangelical circles, as much as it is within Santorum's Catholic.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But they're all utterly crazy and interchangeably evil.

I agree they're all utterly crazy, and I'd agree that they're all equally evil, but I disagree that they're interchangeably evil. In fact, they're of the type that once wages holy wars against one another precisely because their crazy beliefs aren't the same.

ETA: For example, the evil of believing in the teaching authority of the Pope is not interchangeable with the evil of believing in the literal inerrancy of the Bible. Believing in transubstantiation isn't the same kind of evil as believing in double predestination.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Obviously it's been a while since you've cracked the cover of Reader's Digest. The euthanasia claim has been made multiple times in their pages.

So he really thinks it's OK to repeat information from a source like that as if it were true without any fact-checking at all? (He spouted an absurd claim of the percentage of total deaths euthanasia makes up in the Netherlands.)

But you are right: I haven't read Reader's Digest since I was a teenager and realized how full of crap it is. (Even then, I mostly just liked the amusing anecdotes and such.)

 

[Roadtoad]

So he really thinks it's OK to repeat information from a source like that as if it were true without any fact-checking at all? (He spouted an absurd claim of the percentage of total deaths euthanasia makes up in the Netherlands.)

But you are right: I haven't read Reader's Digest since I was a teenager and realized how full of crap it is. (Even then, I mostly just liked the amusing anecdotes and such.)

Too true. And this is why I won't vote for him assuming he makes it to November.

The man is running for the Presidency. I expect a President to check facts before he acts, (you know, sort of like the previous two occupants of the White House didn't do, which led us to bomb the hell out of an aspirin factory, and invade a country which had no WMDs. That sort of thing.)

Ronald Reagan might have turned toward Christianity later in life, but Reagan did several things right in his choosing people who could help him run the country well, including asking Howard Baker to take over as Chief of Staff. (Note, also, that Baker set aside his own ambitions for the office to take the job.) Reagan wasn't perfect, but he was a damned sight better than what we're seeing on the Conservative side today.

(Note: A great deal of credit belongs to his daughter Maureen, who stepped in to help her step-mother when the President started to slide due to Alzheimer's. Leslie Stahl mentions this in her book.)

Santorum is coming into this facing, among other things:

Possible war with Iran.

A weak recovery from the recession.

An extremely weak housing market.

Untrustworthy "allies" in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

A weak Euro, facing possible collapse due to the crises in Ireland, Greece, and Spain.

An auto industry which is still weak.

A military which is being cut, whether it should be or not. (This will likely cause debate.)

Santorum's behavior on the trail doesn't indicate he has a solid grasp of the real issues facing us, and how he plans to deal with them even if he did. This man cannot be trusted, and that's sad.

 

[Ladewig]

So he really thinks it's OK to repeat information from a source like that as if it were true without any fact-checking at all? (He spouted an absurd claim of the percentage of total deaths euthanasia makes up in the Netherlands.)

But to him, it might not be an absurd claim. If you came across a statistic that said ten percent of Dutch people between 21 and 25 smoke pot, would you fact check it before repeating it?

Also, he might wrongly believe that his source (whatever it was) was a reliable source so he didn't feel the need to confirm it. Hell, someone might have said to him "here are the numbers - they have been fact checked and are completely accurate." If he was foolish enough to believe that person, then Santorum is not a liar, he is merely a fool.

Keep in mind, skepticism is not a widespread philosophy. And in certain circles, it is not a welcome philosophy.

 

[RandFan]

So he really thinks it's OK to repeat information from a source like that as if it were true without any fact-checking at all? (He spouted an absurd claim of the percentage of total deaths euthanasia makes up in the Netherlands.)

But you are right: I haven't read Reader's Digest since I was a teenager and realized how full of crap it is. (Even then, I mostly just liked the amusing anecdotes and such.)

But to him, it might not be an absurd claim. If you came across a statistic that said ten percent of Dutch people between 21 and 25 smoke pot, would you fact check it before repeating it?

Also, he might wrongly believe that his source (whatever it was) was a reliable source so he didn't feel the need to confirm it. Hell, someone might have said to him "here are the numbers - they have been fact checked and are completely accurate." If he was foolish enough to believe that person, then Santorum is not a liar, he is merely a fool.

Keep in mind, skepticism is not a widespread philosophy. And in certain circles, it is not a welcome philosophy.

True. But a presidential candidate should have his head handed to him for having repeated BS without fact checking. We ought to expect more from candidates. If we don't we will continue to get idiots spouting whatever fits their world view.

 

[shadron]

The fundies may not see Santorum as one of their own, but their political agenda is the same as far as birth control and sexual propriety.

and abortion.

Back when the Supreme Court dropped Roe vs Wade on the nation, the people fighting it were not fundamentalist protestants but rather Catholics. With the exception of a few nutty Christian broadcasters, the evangelicals didn't have any kind of unified voice. It was the Catholics (and mainly driven by conservative hierarchy; the rank and file were using contraception, rule or not) who were fighting abortion and birth control. That was my impression, though that no doubt was filtered by growing up in the west (Colorado) far from the seat of Southern Baptist power.

 

[Ladewig]

Back when the Supreme Court dropped Roe vs Wade on the nation, the people fighting it were not fundamentalist protestants but rather Catholics. With the exception of a few nutty Christian broadcasters, the evangelicals didn't have any kind of unified voice. It was the Catholics (and mainly driven by conservative hierarchy; the rank and file were using contraception, rule or not) who were fighting abortion and birth control. That was my impression, though that no doubt was filtered by growing up in the west (Colorado) far from the seat of Southern Baptist power.

I will readily admit that attitudes have evolved over the past 40 years. The Reverend Jerry Falwell had no small part in driving America into what it is today.

ETA: I was reflecting on the Moral Majority. Even the name is a case of lying for Jesus.

 

[Ladewig]

True. But a presidential candidate should have his head handed to him for having repeated BS without fact checking. We ought to expect more from candidates. If we don't we will continue to get idiots spouting whatever fits their world view.

I wasn't trying to argue that his quotation was acceptable - I was just trying to say that lying might not be the best word to describe is motivations and actions. ETA: and then again, my speculations may be completely wrong and lying is be the perfect description of what he was doing.

Personally, I don't mind if candidates make a very noticeable gaffe, if they then follow it up by saying "I made a mistake in citing that figure." Of course Santorum will never utter those words so I do mind if he makes statements that are very much in conflict with reality, believability , and common sense.