RSN August 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Cole writes: "Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are both Catholics, and wear their faith on their sleeves, but they are hypocritical in picking and choosing when they wish to listen to the bishops."

Republican presidential candidate and former Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum, speaks in Arlington Heights, Illinois, 03/16/12. (photo: Seth Perlman/AP)
Republican presidential candidate and former Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum, speaks in Arlington Heights, Illinois, 03/16/12. (photo: Seth Perlman/AP)



Top Ten Catholic Teachings Santorum Ignores

Juan Cole, Reader Supported News

18 March 12

 

Rick Santorum is claiming that if he wins the Illinois primary, he has virtually won the Republican nomination. It seems an appropriate time for this golden oldie:

he right wing Republican politicians who have been denouncing the requirement that female employees have access to birth control as part of their health benefits as an attack on religious freedom completely ignore the church teachings they don't agree with. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are both Catholics, and wear their faith on their sleeves, but they are hypocritical in picking and choosing when they wish to listen to the bishops.

  1. So for instance, Pope John Paul II was against anyone going to war against Iraq I think you'll find that Rick Santorum managed to ignore that Catholic teaching.

  2. The Conference of Catholic Bishops requires that health care be provided to all Americans. I.e., Rick Santorum's opposition to universal health care is a betrayal of the Catholic faith he is always trumpeting.

  3. The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty for criminals in almost all situations. (Santorum largely supports executions.)

  4. The US Conference of Bishops has urged that the federal minimum wage be increased, for the working poor. Santorum in the Senate repeatedly voted against the minimum wage.

  5. The bishops want welfare for all needy families, saying "We reiterate our call for a minimum national welfare benefit that will permit children and their parents to live in dignity. A decent society will not balance its budget on the backs of poor children." Santorum is a critic of welfare.

  6. The US bishops say that "the basic rights of workers must be respected - the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions…". Santorum, who used to be supportive of unions in the 1990s, has now, predictably, turned against them.

  7. Catholic bishops demand the withdrawal of Israel from Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. Rick Santorum denies that there are any Palestinians, so I guess he doesn't agree with the bishops on that one.

  8. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops ripped into Arizona's law on treatment of immigrants, Cardinal Roger Mahony characterized Arizona's S.B. 1070 as "the country's most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless anti-immigrant law," saying it is based on "totally flawed reasoning: that immigrants come to our country to rob, plunder, and consume public resources." He even suggested that the law is a harbinger of an American Nazism! Santorum attacks 'anchor babies' or the provision of any services to children of illegal immigrants born and brought up in the US.

  9. The Bishops have urged that illegal immigrants not be treated as criminals and that their contribution to this country be recognized.

  10. The US Conference of Bishops has denounced, as has the Pope, the Bush idea of ‘preventive war', and has come out against an attack on Iran in the absence of a real and present threat of an Iranian assault on the US. In contrast, Santorum wants to play Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove and ride the rocket down on Isfahan himself.

The conflict is between Federal authorities and the US Catholic bishops over rules requiring employees of Catholic institutions such as universities and hospitals to have birth control pills supplied to them as part of their health insurance. Because of Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae, the contemporary Roman Catholic church has taken the stand that artificial birth control is immoral. The bishops therefore object to having the church be forced to supply it as part of their employees' health care packages.

The problem is that birth control is legal in the United States, and birth control pills are used for other purposes than contraception (in fact, contraception may not even be the purpose of the majority of prescriptions). Contrary to what Santorum alleges, the prescriptions are relatively expensive for poor and working class families.

Religious practices in the United States are trumped by secular law all the time when there is a conflict. Thus, Native Americans who believe in using peyote as part of their religious rituals were fired from their government jobs for doing so, and the US Supreme Court upheld it in 1990.

Likewise, traditionalist members of the Sikh religion believe that a man should avoid cutting his hair, and should bind it up in a turban. So what if an orthodox Sikh gets a job as a construction worker? He can't get a hard hat on over the turban. Does he have the right to forgo the hard hat on the construction site, so as to retain his turban? The question went to the US courts, and they said Sikhs have to wear hard hats. If a brick fell on the turban and killed the Sikh worker, his family could after all sue the construction company for negligence since it did not require him to wear a hard hat.

Or there are many instances in which Muslim religious laws and practices have been over-ruled in the United States by the courts. American law forbids Muslim-American men to take a second wife, something legal to them in many of their home countries. State law tends to award community property in cases of divorce instead of the much smaller payments men can make to divorced women in Islamic law, even if the couple have specified in their marriage contract that Muslim law (sharia) will govern these issues.

I don't think there is any question that Federal law, and state law, can trump Roman Catholic religious sentiments, just as they trump the religious sentiments and practices of other religious communities where issues of secular justice and equity are at stake.

The tradition of American progressive thought is tolerant of religion even while usually not being religious itself. In my view this attitude of tolerance is rooted in James Madison's theory of democracy, which is that it is best preserved by lively arguments among groups in the body politic that disagree with one another. Thus, while the Roman Catholic church authorities adopted a negative stance toward modernity, cultural pluralism, and democracy in the nineteenth century, the Catholic community in the United States nevertheless contributed in important ways to modernity, cultural pluralism and democracy. Arguably, had the US been entirely Protestant, its law and practice would have evolved in a less pluralistic and tolerant direction.

A flourishing Catholic community contributed to social debates and so improved American democracy - witness Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement. And, the reformist theologians of the twentieth century, most of them European or Latin American, cultivated by American Catholics, made important contributions to our understanding - Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Kueng, Paulo Freire, and Gustavo Gutierrez. I would argue that Vatican II was an important event in American religious life across the board, not just for American Catholics. It is lack of appreciation of Madisonian conceptions of democracy of pluralism and checks and balances that led the late Christopher Hitchens to disregard altogether the enormous positive contribution of the Church, whether to the education of the poor and working classes or to teaching social justice. (By the way, the argument for democracy depending on diverse voices and vigorous debate is also an argument for the benefits for the US of the advent of Islam in American public life).

So, the arguments the bishops are making about the balance between conscience and the obligations of civil law should be welcomed by all Americans as part of our national dialectic.

President Obama is to be applauded for at least trying to find a compromise that doesn't dragoon Catholic institutions into betraying that conscience. In the end, of course, civil law must uphold equitable treatment of all women, and a satisfactory compromise may not be possible. We will be the better for having the debate, and attempting to find a modus vivendi.

What isn't helpful is to have loud-mouthed hypocrites who reject all the humane principles for which the Catholic Church stands getting on a high horse about a third-order teaching such as artificial birth control (on which the position of the church has changed over time, and may change again).


Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+131 # DurangoKid 2012-03-18 14:46
Since when had hypocrisy been an impediment in US politics?
 
 
+155 # Maxwell 2012-03-18 14:54
I get the feeling that many of Rick's fans don't know or care that he's being hypocritical. It seems they mostly care that he's not Obama.
 
 
-14 # Martintfre 2012-03-20 07:28
Quoting Maxwell:
I get the feeling that many of Rick's fans don't know or care that he's being hypocritical. It seems they mostly care that he's not Obama.


In the rush to get anyone but Obama - we will get another Obama - ORomney.

I'm Hoping for change in 2012
 
 
+9 # FatCharley 2012-03-21 06:32
Let's see - Obama: a former Chicago social worker (in a way) whose charming wife earned more than he did but gave it up to grow a vegetable garden at the White House.
Romney: a monumentally wealthy former executive at a financial house that probably didn't offer mortgages to the middle class, if at all. His wife might have a garden, too. And probably several gardeners. Along with "a few Cadillacs", we read.

So, right on, Martinfre, the two of them are obviously clones of each other.
 
 
+142 # solange 2012-03-18 15:16
we are also overlooking that callista gingrich, a devout catholic, was having an affair with a married man.
 
 
+6 # FatCharley 2012-03-21 06:35
I'd say that Newt trumped Calista by having several affairs (it seems) simultaneously with women of various marital statuses - possibly not at the same time, though. May they remain happy - and not in government anywhere.
 
 
+173 # erogers 2012-03-18 15:22
Santorum ignores far more then ten teachings. I was raised Catholic but long lapsed and believe me this political lunatic running for President has not one shred of decency when it comes to being a good human. He reminds me of the very worse one sees in a self-righteous ideologue. Santorum is a complete phony seeking power above all else. Funny thing is, he is a perfect example of why I am a lapsed Catholic. If this nutcase were to pull off a miracle and become President you would have a religious zealot with his hand on the nuclear trigger.
 
 
+140 # DaveM 2012-03-18 15:31
Just another classic example of "pick and choose theology" by yet another loudly proclaimed "true believer".
 
 
+69 # BradFromSalem 2012-03-18 17:32
DaveM,

How come the only items they choose are the ones that can be summarized as "thou shall not have sex"?

Just once I would love to see these self-righteous wingers admit that the sex is not the only sin, and in fact is only sinful when it harms another!
 
 
+83 # jimdonnellan 2012-03-18 15:39
Thank you, thank you, thank you. A breath of fresh air in an otherwise polluted political atmosphere.
 
 
+126 # John Gill 2012-03-18 15:45
I despise Rick Santorum. That being said, though Santorum, himself, may wish to close the gap between church and state, the majority of Americans do not.

We do not want our politicians using their religious leaders' positions as guideposts to follow when proposing and passing laws.

After all, much was made of JFK's public assurance that he would not be politically influenced by his church, so to accuse Santorum of voting politically, rather than religiously, is of very little value, if any.

I disagree strongly with his politics, and I'm pretty damn sure I dislike him personally, but I don't give a flying patooty whether his political stances conflict with those of his church leadership.

The argument we need to be making is rather that Rick Santorum's politics are inhumane, and that his very presence in the public eye, as a candidate for the office of the presidency, is an ugly scar on the face of our nation.
 
 
+101 # Richard Raznikov 2012-03-18 16:43
John, you may be missing the central distinction here. Were it not for Santorum's insistence that his religion does inform his public positions, no one would make that big a deal of it. But if a politician on the one hand claims to be an adherent to a particular faith and on the other hand clearly ignore its teachings, that's the mark of dangerous hypocrisy. And that's the problem with Santorum and his pretending to be a Catholic.
 
 
+49 # Glen 2012-03-18 17:21
Excellent, John Gill, and I agree completely, and will guarantee many reading your post will, also.

There is much to despise in the entire process before us, not to mention individuals such as Santorum. Your analysis explains it nicely.
 
 
+56 # maveet 2012-03-18 15:50
Italy now has the problem of an aging population without enough offspring to replace it or care for the oldies. Italy, the center of the Catholic universe. This didn't happen without widespread (universal???) use of birth control.
 
 
+48 # rosaleee 2012-03-18 18:13
They are solving the problem with widespread immigration. The fertility rate has climbed from 1.18/woman to 1.41 and is growing.

Access to birth control is the means, not the cause. The cause is women realizing that they want more out of life than being baby machines!

Ultimately, a shrinking population in an era of shrinking resources is NOT a bad thing.
 
 
+3 # FatCharley 2012-03-21 06:44
Birth control?
Ah, yes! "Don't do what I say, do what I do" - so, be a virginal man in his 60s or more, whose preferred garb is the prettiest white BabyDoll nighty you ever saw, paired with the shoes he always wanted: "Wizard of Oz" ruby slippers. It is a fascinating universe.
 
 
+49 # wwway 2012-03-18 15:58
I hold hypocrisy in religion with much more distain than politics. Politics is the art of compromise so hypocrisy doesn't apply. Unless, of course, the politician inserts relgion into politics.
When the Pope handed down his incycle (sp) on abortion and birth control in 1964 I was visiting my friend next door. I over heard my friends mother tell her friends who had come for tea, "The Pope can moralize all he wants. I have to live with reality." The birth control pill had become legal to married women only in 1960 so I assume those women were already using it.
It has also been my observation that those who pound the pulpit of morality are the ones doing the deed. Do as I say. Not as I do. That's hypocrisy.
 
 
+43 # Ralph Averill 2012-03-18 16:14
Neither Santorum nor Gingrich are unique in creating the image of moral superiority by wrapping themselves in a religion while ignoring the tenets of whatever religion they pretend to believe in.
If, when, Jesus returns, he's going to tell a lot of people to get his name off whatever it is they are doing and saying in his name.
 
 
+78 # Okieangels 2012-03-18 16:16
Little Ricky also conveniently ignores the fact that evolution has been accepted by the Catholic church for decades now.
 
 
+8 # Richard Raznikov 2012-03-19 20:01
Quoting Okieangels:
Little Ricky also conveniently ignores the fact that evolution has been accepted by the Catholic church for decades now.


Shhh! You're scaring him.
 
 
+73 # angelfish 2012-03-18 16:25
The Bible tells us that it is "by your works" you are known. You can SAY whatever you want about Being a Christian but until you BEHAVE like one, sorry Rick, sorry Newt, you REALLY aren't one!
 
 
+39 # Kiwikid 2012-03-18 16:28
These ten points look like a manifesto for the progressive cause :-)
 
 
+45 # wwway 2012-03-18 17:21
When I was growing up American Baptist in a Catholic neighobrhood this manifesto for the progressive cause was considered a righteous endeavor by all of us. In the 1970's it all began to change into the conservative capitalist christian manifesto which is: Hurting people is helping them. Helping people is hurting them. If you aren't blessed with the ability to afford capitalism then you must have displeased God.
All one has to do is listen to Republicans and see their legislation to understand this new manifesto.
 
 
+20 # genierae 2012-03-19 07:14
You're exactly right wwway, these rightwing fundamentalists have everything backwards. And do they ever think about Jesus, or is he just a figurehead? He devoted his life to the poor, and spent all of his time with them. He reserved his contempt for the hypocrites in the church, who had God "much in their mouths, but little in their hearts". Just like Santorum.
 
 
+20 # Billy Bob 2012-03-18 18:14
Much of the true progressive agenda of 100 years ago was motivated by religious thinking. It didn't propose to end the First Amendment at the time. It was a progressive agenda, afterall.
 
 
+3 # FatCharley 2012-03-21 07:00
Billy Bob is right, but much of the progressive agenda was also driven by the bold actions of farmers and workers. Check out
 
 
+57 # genierae 2012-03-18 16:29
Why isn't it ever mentioned in these stories that the Catholic church is antigay? Does that meant that they don't have to hire gays in their hospitals and other public institutions? Of course not, and so why should they be allowed a special privilege for birth control coverage? I thought we left Europe to get away from religious oppression. If Rick Santorum wants to be a "Christian" that's his business, but he needs to keep it to himself. As Americans we have the freedom to make our own choices, and we don't need a fanatic like him to do our thinking for us.
 
 
+13 # Okieangels 2012-03-18 16:42
Now, now...we all know gays can only function as priests...
 
 
+30 # Maxwell 2012-03-18 21:29
I know you were using humor to make a point -- specifically a barb against the Catholic Church, not against gays.

Nonetheless, I feel compelled to point out that the priest being so carefully protected by The Church are pedophiles, not gay.
 
 
+1 # FatCharley 2012-03-21 07:13
There is no doubt that some priests are gay. And that does not appear to be a problem for the Church, as long as they remain celibate and obey the rules governing the exercise of their duties. Still, priests do leave to get married or live in accordance with their own soul or preferences.
 
 
+33 # Richard Raznikov 2012-03-18 16:46
When the Catholic Church loses its tax exempt status, then it can talk about its tenets in political terms. Until then, I'm not listening.
 
 
+33 # Billy Bob 2012-03-18 18:12
The point of the article is that even when politicians claim to be following those tenets they aren't. In this case, sanitorium is pretending to be a lot more Catholic than he really is. If he followed all of the Church's teachings he'd be mostly liberal.

But, I agree about the tax exempt status thing. It applies to all religion. If it wants to mouth off about politics, it's time to pay the entry fee.
 
 
+39 # AMLLLLL 2012-03-18 16:40
If you asked Santorum who the Head of the Church of England is, I doubt he would know ~ the Monarch, ever since Henry VIII (probably Gingrich in a prior lifetime) separated from the inconvenient tenets of the Catholic Church.

I can see why the first Amendment makes a big deal of this, not placing one entity over the other, rendering freedom of religion, and freedom FROM religion.

I believe it was Jesus who said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's". Separation of Church right there in the Bible....
 
 
+48 # Billy Bob 2012-03-18 16:56
As many of us Catholics have been saying all along, Sanitorium is just another right-wing politician trying to hijack the Catholic faith for his political purposes. Instead of helping himself, all he's really doing is hurting American Catholics - especially those who happen to be left-wing liberals, like me. The Catholic Church is a huge voting block. The only problem is that it ISN'T a block. It's votes are pretty split, although in reality, American Catholics are slightly TO THE LEFT of the average voter. THAT'S RIGHT, TO THE LEFT.
 
 
+20 # Okieangels 2012-03-18 17:52
What galls me is that his bishop apparently says nothing about the way he tries to hi-jack the church.
 
 
+18 # Billy Bob 2012-03-18 21:07
The American Council of Bishops is FAR to the right of the Pope himself. I found out from a fellow commentator on this thread that the Pope has recently written an article stating that the official position of the Church is socialistic. It boldly points out the moral problems with capitalism.

I seriously doubt the Council of Bishops is going to be on record agreeing with it, or even calling attention to it. These bishops are Americans afterall, and I'm afraid too many of them have bought into the manipulations set up by the right-wing agenda.

We are one liberal Pope away from a profound change in the Catholic Church that will affect everything. It will probably happen in the next few decades. Don't expect sanitorium to go along with it, despite his phony "I'm a Catholic" rhetoric.

Oh well, in another 10 years, sanitorium and his entire social agenda will be rendered irrelavant.
 
 
+12 # Okieangels 2012-03-18 21:20
Well, that's true, and I think it's mainly the fault of Pope John Paul II, who packed the College of Bishops with reactionary conservatoids. He had one progressive bone in his body, and that inspired him to reach out to those of other faiths, but still acted like a tyrant in his own church. Pope Benedict is somewhat left of center when it comes to social issues, biblical interpretation, etc., but still falls short on a number of other issues.

I hear the Episcopal church is nice...
 
 
+10 # Billy Bob 2012-03-18 23:48
Are you a Catholic? Nothing personal. I'm just curious.

As for the Episcopal Church, I go to a Catholic Church that shares its facilities with an Episcopal Church. No competitive spirit, just open cooperation.

I think you might have hit the nail on the head about Pope John Paul II vs. Pope Benedict. Maybe we're SLOWLY moving in the right direction. I just hope it isn't too slow that it will be undone.
 
 
+8 # AMLLLLL 2012-03-19 17:44
Slowly is an understatement. Look at how long it took the Church (200 years) to officially recognize that the Earth revloves around the sun, having held Galileo under house arrest for his 'radical' assertions.
 
 
+3 # FatCharley 2012-03-21 07:28
"We are one liberal Pope away from a profound change in the Catholic Church that will affect everything. It will probably happen in the next few decades. Don't expect Sanitorium to go along with it, despite his phony "I'm a Catholic" rhetoric." I look forward to this.

The pendulum will swing back to the "Roncalli" - John XXIII era. His story is interesting: Following the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, Roncalli was elected Pope, to his great surprise. He had even arrived in the Vatican with a return train ticket to Venice. He was chosen by the cardinals - after the long pontificate of Pope Pius XII - because it was assumed he would probably be a short-term pope. John XXIII's personal warmth, good humour and kindness entirely captured the world's affections.
 
 
+54 # Wind in His Hair 2012-03-18 17:01
I am from Pennsylvania and we dumped Little Ricky fast. I am amazed that people would even remotely consider him as a leader. He was a shrill for all the things that set our nation back years. He is not one of us.Send him back to the dark ages where he belongs, burning witches,and poking forks in peoples moles, looking for the devil.
 
 
+20 # futhark 2012-03-18 17:58
Are the Pharisees a branch of the Catholic Church? If they are, then that is the branch to which Rick Santorum belongs. If they are not, then he needs to stop calling himself a Catholic.
 
 
0 # FatCharley 2012-03-21 07:33
See a bit more about the Pharisees here:



And no, Rick Santorum is most definitely not a member of this "branch" of the Catholic church.
 
 
+42 # Fiona Mackenzie 2012-03-18 18:24
Why were the founders determined to have separation of church and state? Because law made by the church is based, not on actual information regarding the purpose and well being of the people, but on what someone was told by someone else, who alleges to have gotten it from god, who must be obeyed. This is not government; this is a tyranny of superstition.
 
 
+26 # lilpat126 2012-03-18 18:50
I find all of this fascinating.I have been in op-ed in the local paper with a Catholic Republican. He just thinks the whole world should share his point of view. His own kids don't all share it. All I can say is Thank You Dad for refusing to let your kids be brought up Catholic. We went to church at times with Catholic relatives because he wanted us exposed to all points of view. We made up own minds. If we had wanted to turn once we became of age he would have supported us. That is why I personally have such a problem with the Christian Taliban.
 
 
+26 # The Saint 2012-03-18 19:21
Santorum conveniently ignores the pro-labor tradition of American bishops and Rome. He ignores the anti-capital punishment tradition as well as the pro-life ecological teachings. He is obsessed with the sexual prohibitions of natural law ethics that Rome was warned in the 1960s to discard. He is a pre-Vatican II Catholic whose personal sexual and identity conflicts keep him both blind and bound up tight in his own conundrums.
 
 
+1 # FatCharley 2012-03-21 07:36
Quoting The Saint:
Santorum conveniently ignores the pro-labor tradition of American bishops and Rome. He ignores the anti-capital punishment tradition as well as the pro-life ecological teachings. He is obsessed with the sexual prohibitions of natural law ethics that Rome was warned in the 1960s to discard. He is a pre-Vatican II Catholic whose personal sexual and identity conflicts keep him both blind and bound up tight in his own conundrums.


Very well put!
 
 
+24 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-03-18 22:02
The fact that Santorum is a hypocrite is just the small elephant in the political room. The really big herd of elephants in the room are all those registered American citizens who vote for him with relish and passion. They do not care to partake in our intelligent discussion through this comments forum, because their brainwashed gray matter doesn't deem it necessary...the y know the holy truth, and Mr. Rick assures them of this every chance he gets.
America...what a country!
 
 
+17 # darryl 2012-03-19 02:23
Why aren't Catholic leaders being called out for Santorum's failure to abide by his religion's tenets?
Since Rickie claims "sex is for procreative purposes only", After Rickie's wife goes thru menopause, will he stop having sex with her?
OR, will he dump her for a younger, fetile woman?
Why isn't he being asked that question?
 
 
+19 # unitedwestand 2012-03-19 03:29
When Santorum surged in the polls, it became clear that a portion of the nation really is retrograde and have no idea what is good for them or the country. Sounds to me like he would like to bring back the Inquisition.

Santorum (and the rest of the other Republican clowns running) makes me determined to work as hard as I can not to get any of them elected.

Vote for Santorum - HE'LL BACK YOU UP, TO THE 11TH CENTURY that is.
 
 
+5 # steve98052 2012-03-20 04:11
I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
 
 
+4 # je proteste 2012-03-21 01:35
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
 
 
+2 # FatCharley 2012-03-21 07:42
Quoting steve98052:
I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.


Neither did my Jewish ancestors. But they and many others got out of Spain in time and were welcomed by the Sultan of Turkey, who said something like "they are useful people, after all..." Some Spanish Jews even ended up in what later became New York.
 
 
+1 # je proteste 2012-03-21 15:07
Monty Python, Fat Charley. (Or so I took it to be.)
 
 
+1 # FatCharley 2012-03-21 07:54
The Spanish Inquisition was a joint collaboration between the Spanish Church and the monarchy of the time. Some fortunate Jews ended up sailing away with Columbus, a considerable number accepted the invitation of the Sultan of Turkey to relocate there (he is said to have noted "They are a useful people, after all" - or words to that effect). Some relocated to North Africa - future French Overseas Districts.
 
 
+22 # genierae 2012-03-19 07:40
Organized religion is becoming an anachronism, held over from the last century. Many churches teach intolerance and bigotry, and cause so much trouble, splitting up families and fracturing society. If we want to move into the future, we must leave superstition behind and begin to solve our myriad problems by joining together in mutual goodwill, putting the common good first. Rick Santorum is the product of another age, and he needs to wake up, or he will be left behind in the dustbin of history.
 
 
+4 # FatCharley 2012-03-21 08:02
Some people seem to find deeply ritualized lives to be very satisfying. All well and good, if they can "live and let live". But the conviction that this route is "God's Way" and that those who don't live like this are not "with God" is a throwback to a very Manichean (black/white) view of human nature and very hard on anyone but the top of the heap (after all, the supposed sign of God's favour is making it up there...). Various religions retain or adopted this view ("success=godli ness").
 
 
+16 # Don Thomann 2012-03-19 09:27
Hypocrites invariably vote for hypocrites!
 
 
+8 # mjc 2012-03-19 09:30
Interesting information and info that I never had much desire to look up but if you're a Catholic those "top ten" teachings should be helpful. Santorum like Gingrich will manipulate THEIR version of Catholicism to suit their need to be elected...or should say, nominated.
 
 
+11 # bugbuster 2012-03-19 11:55
There's no point in arguing these points. It would be like arguing with an unscrupulous used car salesman. He's going to sell the car to the first sucker he can find. Everybody but the sucker already knows that the car is junk. All the salesman or the GOP candidate cares about is making the sale.
 
 
+10 # Dunn 2012-03-19 14:19
Move over Al Qaeda. The US Republican hypocritical, arrogant ultra-rich, religious zealots are us Americans new terrorists that we now have to fight on our own homeland... And they have the mainstream media here helping them spread it. And VALIDATING IT.Lord have mercy on us all...USA!USA! Occupy now, why the occupyin's good.
 
 
+12 # Martintfre 2012-03-19 14:22
NOW are you getting a clue why Ron Paul called Santorum a fake to his face.

Because he is a fake.

When santorum was running to be my congressman he whined and complained how the incumbent (outgoing Doug Walgren #3 in check kiting scandal) was never at home - how Doug was out of touch with the people always in DC with the lobbiest.

well fast forward a few years - Us senator Rick Santorum rents out his 2 bed room penn hills home to a nice couple and lives permanently in his Virginia Mansion - at least he is in close touch with his DC homies on K street.
 
 
-9 # pwmr33 2012-03-19 19:38
You tend to jump to conclusions before all the facts are known. You use subjective reasoning instead of logic.
 
 
+3 # JJS 2012-03-20 04:32
Satanorum, the true anti-Christ.
 
 
+5 # bobby t. 2012-03-20 09:17
People who cause gays to suffer lives of shame will never get my respect, or support. People who cause women to suffer because of their agenda will also not get my support. Nor do they deserve it. Man has a thin veneer of civilization covering up a massive and powerful atavistic nature. Until we evolve to a higher species, we will still act as cave men.
It is nice to see such a liberal Catholic agenda, but one is not led to believe in their humaneness. It was only a few years ago that the Catholic church finally did away with the infamous laundries around the world, and only two years ago when the priests in America were found to be child molesters. This is still going on, and condoned again because of the lack of priests now in America. The same thing happens in all places of worship and in all religions because we tend to trust people who are not to be trusted.
 
 
+6 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-03-21 00:52
The other day I wrote about the herd of elephants in the room that should really be of major concern for this experiment called America. Here is further proof of what I'm worried about. Mitt just 'won' Illinois. A poll taken of Illinois Republicans says that 39% of them believe the President of the United States, our president, every American's president, is a Muslim. How could that possible be; that 39% of voting Republicans believe such a thing? They can't be that stupid. Maybe they are just so brainwashed, as I said earlier, that they believe what they are told to believe. I'm didn't look into it further, but I'm quite sure that neither Ricky nor Mitty corrected them. Can it be that the two (2) leading contenders for the Republican nomination to run for the vaulted position of President of these United States is a Muslim?
Do these 39% also believe that the surface of the earth is flat, and that the age of the earth is at best a mere 6-7,000 years old? If they do believe the latter, I sure they don't have any qualms about putting gasoline in the tanks of their cars that is 150 million years old. I guess to them that oil came with the earth as a bonus, like extra batteries with your new flashlight! Again I have to say it, and again with renewed amazement...Ame rica, what a country!!
 
 
+1 # Interested Observer 2012-03-21 06:51
No argument with the basic point that in matters of politics and economics religion is useless because its sources are sufficiently vast to produce cherry picked rationalization s for almost any position or action one might simply desire for any reason whatever. However, point 1 here is a phony. If any U.S. president were to explicitly act according to such a "teaching" it would justify all the paranoia and vitriol once poured out during the 1960 Kennnedy campaign about the inherent unfitness of a Roman Catholic president, even if it clearly did not apply to Kennedy. It would also be the biggest breach of the separation of the church and state in history.
 
 
0 # Fiona Mackenzie 2012-03-21 19:42
Santorum has sworn to end separation, and said that JFK's speech affirming separation "makes me throw up."
 
 
+2 # Interested Observer 2012-03-23 07:02
If JFK's statement sickens him, he should find another country with values more compatible with his own. That would be quite easy, if he could just manage to convert to Islam.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN