Santorum talks about Satan destroying America

[Biscuit]

Also from that speech and perhaps even more damaging is this

“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,”

 

[MaGZ]

I understand he does attend a traditional Latin-mass church...

Are we quite sure he's not aligned with the Dominionists/New Apostolic loons?

Sounds like the sort of silliness they go on about.

Someone should ask him if he believes in exorcisms?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You do realize that Santorum is Catholic?

That's a distinction that means nothing to Santorum.

First, even though Santorum clearly aligns himself with the religious right (which is predominantly protestant), he will never deny the importance of being a Catholic. Second, I was responding to your remark that the religious right doesn't include Catholicism.
That's precisely why I said Santorum is atypical. He's atypical one way or another. He's either atypical as a supporter of the religious right (because he's Catholic), or he's atypical as a Catholic (as a supporter of a more-or-less protestant theology).

Check out this article about what he talked about tonight.

I started a thread on those remarks yesterday.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also from that speech and perhaps even more damaging is this

Wow! He seems determined to piss everybody off.

He isn't about to publish a book, is he? Looking for a quick way out of this GOP primary thing now that he's in the spotlight?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Latin mass? Sounds like he's in with the Opus Dei types.

 

[Roadtoad]

In Santorum's defense, I believe he genuinely means well. He sees an epic conflict between Good and Evil, and he believes an individual must consciously choose his path. Fish or cut bait. You're either serving Good (God/Jesus) or Evil (Lucifer/Satan).

And, to be honest, there's a degree of validity to this, as anyone with a passing knowledge of recent history can attest. There's little question we've seen incredible evil in even recent years.

Santorum means well. The problem is, he doesn't do well.

I'd like to know what Santorum was doing when priests were raping children. I'd like to know what he was doing as homelessness was revealed as endemic during the 70's and 80's. I'd like to know what he proposes as a solution to chronic hunger in the United States. I'd really like to know what he wants to do to bring an end to illegal emigration to this nation, and if that will include addressing the rampant poverty across our borders. (Somehow, I don't think so.)

The problem with Santorum -- and most of the Republican Party -- is the idea that we can all just bootstrap ourselves out of whatever misery we're in and build a better world for ourselves. That wouldn't be so bad if it were true, but anyone who's read through the board and some of what's been happening in the lives of those here would be rapidly disabused of that notion. Take it a bit further and examine the lives of everyday people, of the numbers of those who are struggling just to keep ends together, and you begin to realize just how vicious an attitude this is.

The reality is most of us have gotten where we are in our lives through the efforts of people who have graciously offered a hand up. We never ascend on our own, we're lifted up on the efforts of others. And Rick Santorum will probably never understand that.

For someone who's so well versed on the Bible, he seems to have forgotten when the multitudes gathered to hear Jesus preach, Jesus didn't send them away to go get food, but rather told his apostles to feed them themselves. It's a weird business when Santorum can't seem to remember that part, but he's quick to recall that there's a Satan and that end times are coming.

It says a lot about Santorum, and none of it good. And when you're quick to find Enemies of God in everything from birth control pills to Unions, it doesn't leave a lot of reason to support you. In fact, I find myself waiting for South Park's crew to come up with a new parody, (and I don't even like South Park.) That leaves even less reason to vote for him, much less take anything he says seriously.

 

[leftysergeant]

For someone who's so well versed on the Bible, he seems to have forgotten when the multitudes gathered to hear Jesus preach, Jesus didn't send them away to go get food, but rather told his apostles to feed them themselves. It's a weird business when Santorum can't seem to remember that part, but he's quick to recall that there's a Satan and that end times are coming.

I just wish the silly twit would figure out what Revalations is about and stop trying to help the Harlot saddle the Beast.

 

[Chaos]

In Santorum's defense, I believe he genuinely means well. He sees an epic conflict between Good and Evil, and he believes an individual must consciously choose his path. Fish or cut bait. You're either serving Good (God/Jesus) or Evil (Lucifer/Satan).

And, to be honest, there's a degree of validity to this, as anyone with a passing knowledge of recent history can attest. There's little question we've seen incredible evil in even recent years.

To be honest, after this paragraph I was wondering if someone had hijacked your account.

I don´t believe in the existence of evil, and I don´t think you do either - not in the sense that Santorum et al use the term. I believe in the existence of greed (God, if he existed, would know you´ve been on the business end of that one often enough) and bigotry and xenophobia and ruthlessness and the conviction that might makes right, and that the ends justify the means, and that the people on the other side of that border (be it a national border, or the border between a white neighbourhood and a black ghetto) are less human than those on this side and that thus the usual rules (of law or of common decency) do not apply when dealing with them. But evil? No.

To paraphrase the demon Crowley from Good Omens, "They´re not fundamentally good or fundamentally evil... they´re fundamentally human."

Santorum means well. The problem is, he doesn't do well.

I´ll bet you dollars to doughnuts that Hitler also meant well and, for a certain definition of "well" and valuing the opinion of certain groups higher than those of others (I think you know which posters I am thinking of) he even did well, or tried to anyway. Meaning well and doing well doesn´t mean all that much by itself.

I'd like to know what Santorum was doing when priests were raping children.

Condemning the immorality caused by the growing influence of secularism, I´m sure.

I'd like to know what he was doing as homelessness was revealed as endemic during the 70's and 80's. I'd like to know what he proposes as a solution to chronic hunger in the United States. I'd really like to know what he wants to do to bring an end to illegal emigration to this nation, and if that will include addressing the rampant poverty across our borders. (Somehow, I don't think so.)

I think Santorum´s statements in praise of income inequality answer that question for you.

The problem with Santorum -- and most of the Republican Party -- is the idea that we can all just bootstrap ourselves out of whatever misery we're in and build a better world for ourselves. That wouldn't be so bad if it were true, but anyone who's read through the board and some of what's been happening in the lives of those here would be rapidly disabused of that notion.

No offense intended, Roadtoad, but I´d say your life so far (as shared by you in Forum Community over the years) is Exhibit A in the case against this whole "just work hard, and all will be well" thing.

Take it a bit further and examine the lives of everyday people, of the numbers of those who are struggling just to keep ends together, and you begin to realize just how vicious an attitude this is.

I think the root of this is not so much "you are responsible for your own well-being" but "*I* am *not* responsible for your well-being" - less charitably put as "screw you, sucker, I got mine".

The reality is most of us have gotten where we are in our lives through the efforts of people who have graciously offered a hand up. We never ascend on our own, we're lifted up on the efforts of others. And Rick Santorum will probably never understand that.

Which, come to think of it, is kind of ironic considering how many asses he´s probably had to kiss so far in order to get wherever he got as a politician.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I was wrong, he isn't a typical Conservative. He only expressed the typical Conservative view.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Latin mass? Sounds like he's in with the Opus Dei types.

Let's just say that Santorum is sui generis.

 

[Roadtoad]

To be honest, after this paragraph I was wondering if someone had hijacked your account.

I don´t believe in the existence of evil, and I don´t think you do either - not in the sense that Santorum et al use the term. I believe in the existence of greed (God, if he existed, would know you´ve been on the business end of that one often enough) and bigotry and xenophobia and ruthlessness and the conviction that might makes right, and that the ends justify the means, and that the people on the other side of that border (be it a national border, or the border between a white neighbourhood and a black ghetto) are less human than those on this side and that thus the usual rules (of law or of common decency) do not apply when dealing with them. But evil? No.

To paraphrase the demon Crowley from Good Omens, "They´re not fundamentally good or fundamentally evil... they´re fundamentally human."

Such is the fight we all face. Still, I think knowing bigotry has no factual basis, that it is wrong, and perpetuating it qualifies as an evil act.

I´ll bet you dollars to doughnuts that Hitler also meant well and, for a certain definition of "well" and valuing the opinion of certain groups higher than those of others (I think you know which posters I am thinking of) he even did well, or tried to anyway. Meaning well and doing well doesn´t mean all that much by itself.

Unfortunately, I do know. It bothers the hell out of me. (No names need be named here, of course.) But to take Hitler as an example, or even Stalin for that matter, the reality remains that once we saw where they were headed, people of conscience should have spoken up and taken action against them. (At the very least, those who lacked the courage to fight should have backed those who were willing to, or at least kept our mouths shut and allowed them to continue.)

Santorum, I don't think, gets this. To be honest, the idea I get from him is he'd be one of the first to turn in troublemakers like Sophie Scholl or Andrei Sakharov.

Condemning the immorality caused by the growing influence of secularism, I´m sure.

I'm sure the victims are grateful for that...

I think Santorum´s statements in praise of income inequality answer that question for you.

It did, but thanks for the reminder.

No offense intended, Roadtoad, but I´d say your life so far (as shared by you in Forum Community over the years) is Exhibit A in the case against this whole "just work hard, and all will be well" thing.

Truthfully, I was thinking of Rick and Slingblade. Knowing what I do about those two, the one thing that's clear is they've suffered incredibly, kept plugging at it, and still gotten screwed over time and again.

I think the root of this is not so much "you are responsible for your own well-being" but "*I* am *not* responsible for your well-being" - less charitably put as "screw you, sucker, I got mine".

Hey, you must have met my dispatcher!

Which, come to think of it, is kind of ironic considering how many asses he´s probably had to kiss so far in order to get wherever he got as a politician.

And people wonder why I wouldn't let these clods kiss my kids when they were tiny ones for their photo ops. No, that's not Chap Stick on their lips, kids.

 

[Chaos]

Such is the fight we all face. Still, I think knowing bigotry has no factual basis, that it is wrong, and perpetuating it qualifies as an evil act.

Evil act... maybe. Evil as a force or an entity... no. The Santorums of this world think that, as I understand it, evil is some sort of force or entity, with Satan either as its embodiment or its source, which has its own goals. That, when you think it all the way to the end, means that, if you do not do the specific things involved in the works of Satan - you know, working on the Sabbath, listening to rock music, being gay, that sort of stuff - then nothing you do is really evil. At least, it wouldn´t be the same quality of evil as the really bad stuff like gay sex.

Unfortunately, I do know. It bothers the hell out of me. (No names need be named here, of course.) But to take Hitler as an example, or even Stalin for that matter, the reality remains that once we saw where they were headed, people of conscience should have spoken up and taken action against them. (At the very least, those who lacked the courage to fight should have backed those who were willing to, or at least kept our mouths shut and allowed them to continue.)

That´s harder than it sounds, if you have been steeped in patriotism and faith and duty to your country and the superiority of your own people over the foreign mongrels. Had you or I, as we are now, been German citizens on 1/30/1933, I have no doubt we´d have started running, and not stopped until we had left that benighted country far behind us. But you or I, having been breastfed that racist patriotic crap that gave birth to the Nazis in first place? I´d give us even odds at least to, as good dutiful citizens, march right along with all the rest.
And even now, a disturbing number of your countrymen completely switch off their brain, and remove their backbone, whenever the national anthem is playing and somebody waves the flag in front on them. We here have by and large learned our lesson back then... folks in your place, not so much.

...I have mentioned once or twice that I consider patriotism at least as bad a problem as religious fanaticism, didn´t I?

Santorum, I don't think, gets this. To be honest, the idea I get from him is he'd be one of the first to turn in troublemakers like Sophie Scholl or Andrei Sakharov.

But of course. Godless liberal scum, all of them.

I'm sure the victims are grateful for that...

I´m sure they would be, if secularists had not corrupted them into valuing their bodily well-being on earth higher than the promise of eternal salvation.

Truthfully, I was thinking of Rick and Slingblade. Knowing what I do about those two, the one thing that's clear is they've suffered incredibly, kept plugging at it, and still gotten screwed over time and again.

Them, too. Thanks for reminding me.

Hey, you must have met my dispatcher!

That sort pops up in all places. Remind me to tell you someday about the folks running the place where I did social service, right after high school.

And people wonder why I wouldn't let these clods kiss my kids when they were tiny ones for their photo ops. No, that's not Chap Stick on their lips, kids.

 

[Roadtoad]

That´s harder than it sounds, if you have been steeped in patriotism and faith and duty to your country and the superiority of your own people over the foreign mongrels. Had you or I, as we are now, been German citizens on 1/30/1933, I have no doubt we´d have started running, and not stopped until we had left that benighted country far behind us. But you or I, having been breastfed that racist patriotic crap that gave birth to the Nazis in first place? I´d give us even odds at least to, as good dutiful citizens, march right along with all the rest.

And even now, a disturbing number of your countrymen completely switch off their brain, and remove their backbone, whenever the national anthem is playing and somebody waves the flag in front on them. We here have by and large learned our lesson back then... folks in your place, not so much.

...I have mentioned once or twice that I consider patriotism at least as bad a problem as religious fanaticism, didn´t I?

This should be addressed.

There are, to my mind, serious differences between Patriotism and Nationalism, between Nationalism and Fascism. I see nothing wrong with standing to attention when the National Anthem is played, and will continue to do so when I hear it, out of respect for the sacrifices rightfully made in the Nation's defense.

Yet, if I read you right, what you're referring to is the crowd that echoes the blind and hypocritical sentiments of the Rush Limbaughs of the world, (you know, Rush, who got out of the draft because he had a zit on his ass), those who claim blindly "My Country, Right Or Wrong." The same crowd that had no problem with Dick Cheney giving a no-bid contract to Halliburton during the Iraq War. The same crowd which claims we were still absolutely right to plow our way into Iraq on the basis of WMDs that it turned out never existed, because "everybody knew" that eventually, Saddam Hussein would have them.

Just to be clear: I'm not shedding any tears over the demise of Hussein and his ill-begotten brood of degenerate bastards. Uday and Qusay got off far easier than they deserved, and the fact that their siblings still draw breath doesn't exactly thrill me, (though I'm somewhat relieved there's less of a chance of them taking power anywhere soon than there is of inclement weather in the Netherworld.) But what we've gotten out of it is of limited benefit in the longest run.

And this bears mention when discussing Santorum, because as President, he's the man in charge of our Foreign Policy. He's the one who will be deciding just what happens, and when for the most part. He probably won't address the issue, but he needs to. This is a critical part of the President's role.

Instead, he's concentrating on this business regarding birth control and secularism in American society. He's ignoring the real issues for ones that most of us consider trumped up and a waste of time. At this point, there's more than enough evidence suggesting fighting birth control is a waste; most Americans are grateful for it, and use it. The Quiverfull crowd can bleat about its evils all they want, most people have more sense.

I'd accuse the man of pandering, but the reality is far more disturbing: He believes all of this.

And while there's a lot to be said for his conviction, there's not a lot to be said for what he's convinced about.

During my Christian fundamentalist days, I still wound up raising eyebrows because I actually encouraged Peggy to think for herself and to speak up. In most Fundy circles, that's not only discouraged, but it provokes a hostile response from most. In fact, I was counseled by some to take a firmer hand with my wife, because if I didn't, she'd become "disrespectful" to my role as the head of household. (What they didn't address what what happened when certain men undercut that role themselves, such as the Pastor who kept hitting on my wife, insisting it was "spiritual" to sleep with him, even though he was a married man.)

This is not too far from Santorum's world view, and it scares the hell out of me. I've been there, done that, and there's no way in Hell I want to go back to that. This kind of patriarchal punkishness, devoted to retarding our growth as a society and a people, is frightening, specifically because of some of the reasons you've cited. This is a young nation, and we have yet to demonstrate why we've achieved the power we have without the sense of responsibility or restraint necessary to retain it. And if that isn't enough, consider the growing sense of narcissism and paranoia which lead to the nationalistic tendencies which get people into so many problems.

Or worse, bury us in fascism. Just ask the Spaniards about that.

Santorum is a fine hand at calling us back to "traditional values," but what he forgets is some traditions deserve to be forgotten.

You're correct in asserting that someone steeped in such rhetoric will blindly follow their leaders straight into the abyss. That's why we should never elect Santorum. (Or a whole host of Democrats or Republicans, either.)

 

[Chaos]

This should be addressed.

There are, to my mind, serious differences between Patriotism and Nationalism, between Nationalism and Fascism.

I think the distinctions between these are at best very vague, and at worst artificial and rhetorical.

Look at it this way: If there are good reasons for doing something, why would you need patriotism to do it? If there are no good reasons for doing something, why would patriotism make it a good thing to do?

The classic example I usually get when I make my views on patriotism known is, what if your country is invaded? Without patriotism, why would anyone rise up to defend it? The answer to that is easy: they would rise to defend the country because they knew that all those patriots making up the invading army view the land and the houses and the valuables and the daughters of the invaded people as their own property and would have no compunction about taking them all, unless they are stopped - no patriotism needed, unless you value your belongings and your female relatives so little that you are unwilling to defend them.
Rather, look at it the other way: if you are not a patriot and, even if you mostly disagree with those weird foreign people across the border, consider them humans equal to yourself, why would you get the weird idea that their land and their stuff and their daughters rightfully belong to you and that you´re entitled to taking them by force?

I see nothing wrong with standing to attention when the National Anthem is played, and will continue to do so when I hear it, out of respect for the sacrifices rightfully made in the Nation's defense.

That is indeed not what I meant. I am sure you can see the difference between "out of respect for the sacrifices rightfully made in the Nation´s defense" and "because it´s the National Anthem, and don´t you love our wonderful country, you traitorous bastard?".

Yet, if I read you right, what you're referring to is the crowd that echoes the blind and hypocritical sentiments of the Rush Limbaughs of the world, (you know, Rush, who got out of the draft because he had a zit on his ass), those who claim blindly "My Country, Right Or Wrong." The same crowd that had no problem with Dick Cheney giving a no-bid contract to Halliburton during the Iraq War. The same crowd which claims we were still absolutely right to plow our way into Iraq on the basis of WMDs that it turned out never existed, because "everybody knew" that eventually, Saddam Hussein would have them.

And the same crowd that thought it was a good idea to drive the Poles and Russians off their land - they are less human than us after all - and distribute it to settlers from the one true ruling race, and who thought it was a good idea to drive Jews into "shower baths" to prevent them from causing the country to lose the war again. I assure you that the average SS camp guard was no less patriotic than the average Rush Limbaugh fan.

Just to be clear: I'm not shedding any tears over the demise of Hussein and his ill-begotten brood of degenerate bastards. Uday and Qusay got off far easier than they deserved, and the fact that their siblings still draw breath doesn't exactly thrill me, (though I'm somewhat relieved there's less of a chance of them taking power anywhere soon than there is of inclement weather in the Netherworld.) But what we've gotten out of it is of limited benefit in the longest run.

So many bastards, so few bullets, eh? Trouble is, doing it that way is lot like playing whack-a-mole. I figure the main part of actually doing anything meaningful in that direction is to stop supporting any convenient dictator, and leaving any inconvenient representative government out in the rain (if you´re not directly undermining them). It´s really ironic that both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden used to be quasi-allies of the US before they turned against you; I´m tempted to get a betting pool going which trusted ally dictator is the next to bite the US in the ass.

And while there's a lot to be said for his conviction, there's not a lot to be said for what he's convinced about.

That´s another big point about why I don´t like patriotism - it gives you a lot of conviction, but leaves the object of that conviction up to whoever is best at wrapping himself in the flag. Today it´s "Be proud of your great nation", tomorrow it´s "Don´t buy from the Jew", and next week you´re seeking new living space in the East.

*snip*
Or worse, bury us in fascism. Just ask the Spaniards about that.

I think you guys are lucky you never suffered the kind of setbacks Europe did in the 1910s/1920s. I doubt it would even take you 15 years to get your Hitler in power. Being a land of superlatives, I doubt you´d bother with a Moussolini or Franco.

 

[Roadtoad]

I think you guys are lucky you never suffered the kind of setbacks Europe did in the 1910s/1920s. I doubt it would even take you 15 years to get your Hitler in power. Being a land of superlatives, I doubt you´d bother with a Moussolini or Franco.

Obviously, you've forgotten how close Louisiana came to electing David Duke as Governor.

One of the few times I've been proud of Rush Limbaugh: He was one of the few Conservatives who spoke out AGAINST Duke.

 

[Chaos]

Obviously, you've forgotten how close Louisiana came to electing David Duke as Governor.

That´s why I´m afraid of what happens if you guys feel half as bad as the Germans did in the early ´30s. Way too many of you already consider Nazis to be way too acceptable as it is.

That´s kind of how it started here as well, back then. "Sure, that Hitler guy is a bit extreme in his rhetoric, his henchmen are a little on the crude and violent side, and he certainly has it in for the Jews, but he´s a good staunch anti-Communist, that´s all that counts - and who really likes the Jews all that much anyway?"

 

[RandFan]

That´s why I´m afraid of what happens if you guys feel half as bad as the Germans did in the early ´30s. Way too many of you already consider Nazis to be way too acceptable as it is.

That´s kind of how it started here as well, back then. "Sure, that Hitler guy is a bit extreme in his rhetoric, his henchmen are a little on the crude and violent side, and he certainly has it in for the Jews, but he´s a good staunch anti-Communist, that´s all that counts - and who really likes the Jews all that much anyway?"

Like Godwin I don't care much for playing the Nazi card. I think John Stewart sums up well why it's usually ill advised.

"So, you want to do the Nazi dance huh?"

 

[a_unique_person]

If you really want your Mass in Aramaic you can. It would take a bit of looking around but there are Catholics who do celebrate it this way

Not that Jesus ever took part in a Mass. He only took part in Jewish rituals.

 

[Roadtoad]

Like Godwin I don't care much for playing the Nazi card. I think John Stewart sums up well why it's usually ill advised.

"So, you want to do the Nazi dance huh?"

Chaos' use of it was limited. And he has concerns. Hell, most of us do.

Personally, I look at the clip, and realize just how well it fits with this conversation. I thought it was interesting, as noted in the description, that there were no women in that panel discussing women's reproductive health. I mean, seriously. Just how stupid is that? What kind of an idiot would discuss birth control, something most men could skip with a fifty-cent piece of latex, something most women can't avoid, without discussing it with the one gender who actually GIVES BIRTH?!?!?

Well, there's Rick Santorum....

 

[Monketi Ghost]

He sounds like the kind of guy who advocates freedom. Freedom for everyone to do as he says.