Why Are Santorum's Views Considered Christian?

[debrand]

Because he is now running close to Romney, I have started paying closer attention to Santorum. Despite his claims that he is Christian, his views seem to contradict Jesus's statements about helping the poor and not judging others.

But one of the things we tried to do with welfare, and we're trying to do with other programs is, we're setting levels of expectation and responsibility, which the left never wanted to do. They don't want to judge. They say, Oh, you can't judge people. They should be able to do what they want to do. Well, not if you're taking my money and giving it to them. But it's this while idea of moral equivalency. (unintelligible) My feeling is, well, if it's my money, I have a right to judge.

If I understand this article, he is also against privacy in the bedroom between consenting adults.

And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.

He tries to make the connection between consensual activity, homosexuality and the priest scandal. That makes no freaking sense. The priest did wrong not only because they violated their vows but because their activity was not consensual!

And it is frightening that he doesn't think that there should be privacy in our own bedrooms between consenting adults.

I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts.

And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything

In order to have consensual sex, the people having sex have to agree to have sex. Incest is typically not consensual. No matter how harmful adultery is, it should not be outlawed.

Why don't more people find this man frightening?

It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion.

He is against our right to privacy. It amazes me that this guy can be running so close to Romney in the polls.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84862,00.html

How the hell are these views considered, Christian? Is talking about faith more important than actually living your faith? The New Testament does not tell Christians to monitor what other people do in their bedrooms or to judge others.

edited because punctuation is a good thing

[notsocommon]

He is anti abortion and anti gay. Nothing else matters

[Avalondaughter]

He is anti abortion and anti gay. Nothing else matters

That about sums it up. People who say they vote "values" condense their values into the two things above.

My moral values have more to do with education, making sure that the weakest among us are cared for, making sure that people who put in an honest day's work get fairly compensated for it, etc.

[mirele]

He is anti abortion and anti gay. Nothing else matters

Anti-birth control, period. I mentioned that to my father yesterday: "Santorum wants the state to be able to ban birth control." He gasped.

[debrand]

He is anti abortion and anti gay. Nothing else matters

What amazes me is that those are mainly cultural issues not biblical ones.

The bible doesn't really take a stance against abortion. Although I have read that early Christians sometimes adopted infants who were left to die, the New Testament doesn't really speak about the practice of infanticide. If early Christians were as against abortion as their modern counterparts, you'd think that there would be a bible verse against infanticide at the lest.

And the few verses in the New Testament against homosexuality might be a mistranslation. There are numerous verses to help the poor and yet reducing poverty takes a back seat to fear that your neighbor might be sleeping with someone of the same sex.

[debrand]

Anti-birth control, period. I mentioned that to my father yesterday: "Santorum wants the state to be able to ban birth control." He gasped.

What! I had not heard anything about birth control

[shangrila]

I can see some sort of a dictator rising, and don't tell me I'm exaggerating.

[shangrila]

Why don't more people find this man frightening?

+1

[debrand]

I can see some sort of a dictator rising, and don't tell me I'm exaggerating.

Although I think that it is possible that some might follow a dictator religious dictator, I don't think that most Americans would.

Could there ever come a point where a state tries to break away and install a dictator? I think that could happen but I don't think that they would be successful.

My worry is that religious fundamentalist and some evangelicals do not mind destroying our freedom in the name of religion. The media is too soft on religious politicians.

[shangrila]

Just the mere fact that he is allowed to speak publically, have his name on buses across the country is frightening.

So what is he gonna try doing against people's privacy in their bedroom. Install cameras?

This guy makes Orwell's 1984 look like camping out.

[debrand]

Just the mere fact that he is allowed to speak publically, have his name on buses across the country is frightening.

So what is he gonna try doing against people's privacy in their bedroom. Install cameras?

This guy makes Orwell's 1984 look like camping out.

A lot of his supporters probably don't realize that it is their bedroom activities would be up for scrutiny. Some people consider sodomy oral sex to be sodomy And heterosexual couples can be charged with sodomy also.

I'd like to see how they like it when the sweet, middle aged, church going parents down the street get charged with sodomy because the wife gave her husband a blow job or they experimented with anal sex.

[dawn9476]

He is anti abortion and anti gay. Nothing else matters

Yep. People always ask why poor people would vote for people like Santorum when it is clear that they are voting againt their financial interests. That's why.

[Austin]

He's an extremist nutball and I don't really have any worries about him. No offense to Iowans, but Iowa is really kind of a non-issue in the whole scheme of things. Huckabee won the republican caucas there in 2008 and we all know how long he lasted (not very). Michelle Bachmann won the Iowa straw vote just this past summer, after all.

Only about 100,000-120,000 people vote (caucus) in Iowa and more than half of the republicans who vote identify as born-again or evangelical. It's not any wonder that an asshole like Santorum can have a good showing in that setting, as they are just one/two issue voters, as others have noted. The rest of the country is very different demographically and he's not going to be able to get his flag to fly in the rest of the country, except for maybe a few states in the deep south.

[dawn9476]

He's an extremist nutball and I don't really have any worries about him. No offense to Iowans, but Iowa is really kind of a non-issue in the whole scheme of things. Huckabee won the republican caucas there in 2008 and we all know how long he lasted (not very). Michelle Bachmann won the Iowa straw vote just this past summer, after all.

Only about 100,000-120,000 people vote (caucus) in Iowa and more than half of the republicans who vote identify as born-again or evangelical. It's not any wonder that an asshole like Santorum can have a good showing in that setting, as they are just one/two issue voters, as others have noted. The rest of the country is very different demographically and he's not going to be able to get his flag to fly in the rest of the country, except for maybe a few states in the deep south.

The fact that Santourm only lost by eight votes in Iowa is really bad for Romney's chances in South Carolina considering that there are way more social conservatives in SC.

[Austin]

The fact that Santourm only lost by eight votes in Iowa is really bad for Romney's chances in South Carolina considering that there are way more social conservatives in SC.

Yes, I agree. There will be a few very conservative states (such as in the South as I mentioned) where Santorum will also do well. But that's about it. A candidate needs a lot more than that to win the nomination.

[Aeryn406]

A lot of his supporters probably don't realize that it is their bedroom activities would be up for scrutiny. Some people consider sodomy oral sex to be sodomy And heterosexual couples can be charged with sodomy also.

I'd like to see how they like it when the sweet, middle aged, church going parents down the street get charged with sodomy because the wife gave her husband a blow job or they experimented with anal sex.

And, the next scary thought would be: If these measures were seriously going to be instituted, how are they going to check on this? Are we rewinding back to the Fabulous 50's and your neighbors are gonna turn you in? It'll be the "Bed Scare"-era!

[MamaJunebug]

Frank Schaefer was interviewed somewhere the other day and lamented that a flavor of Christianity (it's not my flavor!) has infiltrated conservative politics just as conservatism has infiltrated Christianity.

IIRC (and I might not) Frank said he's a fiscal conservative and really resents being lumped into the "conservative" bin with social irresponsibles (my term) like Santorum and Romney.