dagblog - Comments for "Why Evangelicals Love Santorum, Hated JFK"

Callings. Protestants have

EmmaZahn — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 02:09:54 +0000

In reply to Your point is great, but I

Callings. Protestants have them, too.

I agree Santorum is more follower than leader. Really more puppet. And, imo, not really a true believer. More an uncertain one. Relying too much on tradition and authority figures. Couple that with political ambition and voila.... the liberal media begins fearing Catholicism as much as they do Evangelicals and Mormons.

I have mixed feelings about that. It has been so frustrating watching evangelicals being used and abused in the liberal media ever since Bush43 used them to get elected while any hint that there might be zealots in more media-favored faiths were ignored or flamed.

Very, very few churches centered on their evangelists survive their deaths or dishonor. What political plots and plans they may have are inevitably short-lived but the Vatican, like other corporate institutions, is immortal, as is the state of Israel.

Witnessing the success of the John Carroll Society in stacking the judiciary and of Israel in directing so much of our middle east policy this past decade, I have sometimes wondered if the misdirection of fear, scorn and ridicule toward evangelicals was intentional --- even wearing my tinfoil hat.

Well, there. I finally said it out loud.

I agree with the point you

moat — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 01:55:49 +0000

In reply to Why Evangelicals Love Santorum, Hated JFK

I agree with the point you make at the end of the CNN article that any victors over "secular humanism" would soon regret their success.

In a number of ways, the Establishment clause is a refinement and extension of "cuius regio, eius religio; the principle that turned open-ended religious war into conflicts based upon local power structures (Westphalia etc). The American experiment is largely a reaction against the English Civil War where the principle that brought a certain stability between states also ripped a society apart with terror and violence faster than you can say Jack Robinson. So the Americans agreed to try something different; Instead of a prince or republic determining the kind of religion that could be practiced, the matter was thrown back upon the religionist themselves: Reproduce your special community if you can. Don't come looking for help from the government if it doesn't work out.

It is obvious that our history has demonstrated a sharp unevenness in how well this principle has been applied. The Mennonites are hanging out pretty much where they started. The Mormons were chased out of a number of towns and found some space to establish themselves out West. The different people of the First Nation were squeezed into cultural islands and a great effort was made to "assimilate" them and eradicate their language, culture, and religion. I think it is important to compare the different ways communities survive to understand the charge that the Federal government is a social engineer hell bent on dismantling your way of life. In the case of the First Nation, their separate status permitted the BIA to exert an influence unlike any applied to any another group by the U.S. government. Their experience provides a good baseline to establish what social engineering and resistance to it looks like.

That experience doesn't look like what the "Religious Right" complains about.

Are they permitted to teach their children whatever they like in their own schools? Yes.

Can they speak any language they wish amongst themselves? Yes.

Does their belief play a significant part in whether they can participate in the exchange of goods? No, except for what their choices may have exempted themselves from being a part of.

So the Religious Right is not really asking for the end of a persecution where their numbers are dwindling because many others wish for their destruction. They are asking for an advantage because they don't like their chances in the open marketplace of ideas.

Your point is great, but I

artappraiser — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:17:13 +0000

In reply to ?He isn?t like one of these

Your point is great, but I don't think you and the quote are addressing the same thing.

I read that quote as saying that he was not born again overnight (i.e, Jesus came into my heart like a bolt of lighting that night of the revival meeting) but got to what he calls "this level of faith" (and what I would call wacko cultness,) in a slow gradual process. That's interesting in itself for the effect of echo chamber, it is related to the cult indoctrination thing. In a way, that is making a big differentiation between that those "born again" in a single conversion moment and those who slowly indoctrinated into cultish type religious sects.

The classic "born again in a moment" story is a individual's choice, emotional though it might be. That God-to-individual thing does occur in Catholicism with the whole vocation thing, where, God speaks to the individual and tells him or her to become a priest or nun or saint or whatever. And, me adding an ironic twist to that thought: it's a minority of those kind of people who often become new cult leaders (in some narratives called prophets or founders,) because God supposedly spoke directly to them. But they are not the cult follower types (like Santorum.)

?He isn?t like one of these

EmmaZahn — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 22:25:00 +0000

In reply to Forget Romney's Mormonism,

“He isn’t like one of these born-again people where you get hit in the head by some televangelist and you suddenly see the light. It’s been an evolution. He’s always been a Catholic and he’s always been faithful, but he’s never been at this level of faith.”

This from a member of a group who worship a wafer every Wednesday?

each Wednesday parishioners take turns praying nonstop for 24 hours before a consecrated communion wafer, a demanding practice known as Eucharistic adoration.

LOL, "to see ourselves as others see us"

How Romney differs becomes

artappraiser — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 21:38:36 +0000

In reply to Forget Romney's Mormonism,

How Romney differs becomes very clear when you contrast Romney's 2007 "Faith in America" speech:

http://dagblog.com/politics/whats-matter-mormons-12881#comment-147952

with Santorum's repeated public talk of the damage JKF's speech did.

Forget Romney's Mormonism,

artappraiser — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 21:33:11 +0000

In reply to Why Evangelicals Love Santorum, Hated JFK

Forget Romney's Mormonism, turns out the real cultist in the race is Santorum. It's all in a front page NYT article today. As Garry Wills said in an email to the Times for the article, Santorum is not a Catholic, but a papist. He's been a strong supporter, if not an actual member, of the cults of Opus Dei and Regnum Christi. It's also noted that GOP Catholics aren't voting for him; I believe that's because they instinctively know the dif of which Wills. It's hard to explain, in a kind of thing like "gaydar," American Catholics can tell an anti-Vatican II reactionary cultist from subtle cues without having to be told straight out.

Excerpts from "From 'Nominal Catholic’ to Clarion of Faith" by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Laurie Goodstein, my bold:

[....] home schooling their younger children and sending the older boys to a private academy affiliated with Opus Dei, an influential Catholic movement that emphasizes spiritual holiness.

As members of St. Catherine of Siena, a parish here in the wealthy Northern Virginia suburb of Great Falls, the Santorums are immersed in a community where large families are not uncommon and many mothers leave behind careers to dedicate themselves to child-rearing, as Mrs. Santorum has. Mr. Santorum has been on the church roster as a lector, reading Scripture from the pulpit.

The parish is known for its Washington luminaries — Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court is a member — as well as its spiritual ardor. Mass is offered in Latin every Sunday at noon — most parishes have Mass only in English — and each Wednesday parishioners take turns praying nonstop for 24 hours before a consecrated communion wafer, a demanding practice known as Eucharistic adoration.

[....]

Mr. Santorum made another trip to Rome in 2002, this time to speak at a centenary celebration of the birth of Saint Josemaría Escrivá, the founder of Opus Dei. In a little-noticed interview there with The National Catholic Reporter, he said John F. Kennedy had caused “much harm to America” with his 1960 speech calling for strict separation of church and state.

That remark foreshadowed the candidate’s recent comment — he said the Kennedy speech “makes me throw up” — that set off a controversy and made some Catholics wince. It grew out of Mr. Santorum’s view that libertine culture has put America and American Catholics on a path toward moral decline.

In a 2002 essay, Mr. Santorum wrote that too many Catholics had been exposed to “uninspired, watered-down versions of our faith” and that it was time for more committed Catholics to reclaim religious institutions, like colleges, schools and hospitals, “for the sake of our souls.”

He also blamed liberal culture for the sexual abuse scandal involving Catholic priests. “When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected,” he wrote.

Mr. Santorum has been a supporter of Regnum Christi, the lay wing of a conservative, cultish order of priests known as the Legion of Christ. In 2003, he was the keynote speaker at a Regnum Christi event in Chicago that drew protesters because the group’s charismatic founder, who had spent years denying that he had sexually abused seminarians, was scheduled to share the podium.

The founder, the Rev. Marcial Maciel, did not show up, but critics faulted Mr. Santorum for agreeing to appear at the group’s forum. “He was certainly lending them legitimacy,” said Jason Berry, a documentary filmmaker and the author of a book about Father Maciel.

Many Catholics take issue with Mr. Santorum’s approach to their faith. Mr. Santorum, polls show, has lost the Catholic vote in every primary contest so far, some by wide margins.

Garry Wills, a cultural historian and professor emeritus at Northwestern University, is among many Catholics whose touchstone is the Second Vatican Council from 1962-65, which opened up Catholicism to the modern era and proclaimed that the church is its people, not just the pope and his bishops.

“Santorum is not a Catholic, but a papist,” Mr. Wills said in an e-mail.

I think many right wing evangelicals that are supporting him are gonna be quite unhappily surprised when they finally figure it all out. He's been doing the Kennedy did a bad thing speech since 2002, so it's not just pandering, and Santorum's beliefs on that front might be as harmful to them as many others.

The article also a lot of interesting background on Mrs. Santorum, how she did "a total 180” from a long-term relationship with a much older abortion doctor after starting up the relationship with Rick, and on the loss of their son Gabriel

Tarnation, damnation.....

EmmaZahn — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 13:37:05 +0000

In reply to Also too all those Catholic

Tarnation, damnation..... Using either word would have gotten my mouth washed out with soap.

Also too all those Catholic

artappraiser — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 08:36:38 +0000

In reply to Excellent article, Genghis.

Also too all those Catholic breeders were Intemperant, unable to control their attraction to alcohol, and Smith wanted to get them their workingmen's buckets of beer back! Would have been damnation for all good Christian family values for him to be elected! (or was it "tarnation"? )

CNN only allows me 800 words

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 00:49:30 +0000

In reply to Excellent article, Genghis.

CNN only allows me 800 words or so. I thought about mentioning Smith, but I was already over the limit. ;)

I think it would be interesting to turn this into a full article and try to publish it, but it would probably only work of Santorum gets the nomination.

Excellent article, Genghis.

Oxy Mora — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:43:10 +0000

In reply to Why Evangelicals Love Santorum, Hated JFK

Excellent article, Genghis. Succinct, what a pleasure.

The enmity between Protestants and Catholics was highly evident in the 1928 election of Herbert Hoover over the first Catholic nominee, Al Smith. Apparently Protestant ministers were telling congregations that if Smith were to become President, the country would be taken over by the Pope, non-Catholic marriages annulled, and the children declared illegitimate. Hoover won in a landslide, including 5 normally Democratic Southern States.

A joke went around New York that the morning after his defeat Al Smith wired a short telegram to the Pope:"Unpack!"