FReepmail “Antoninus” to be added or removed.
Posted on 02/22/2012 9:50:47 PM PST by darrellmaurina
Rick Santorum has been called a latter-day Savonarola.
That’s far too grand. He’s more like a small-town mullah.
“Satan has his sights on the United States of America,” the conservative presidential candidate warned in 2008. “Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition.”
When, in heaven’s name, did sensuality become a vice? Next he’ll be banning Barry White.
Santorum is not merely engaged in a culture war, but “a spiritual war,” as he called it four years ago. “The Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country — the United States of America,” he told students at Ave Maria University in Florida. He added that mainline Protestantism in this country “is in shambles. It is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”
Satan strikes, a Catholic exorcist told me, when there are “soul wounds.” Santorum, who is considered “too Catholic” even by my über-Catholic brothers, clearly believes that America’s soul wounds include men and women having sex for reasons other than procreation, people involved in same-sex relationships, women using contraception or having prenatal testing, environmentalists who elevate “the Earth above man,” women working outside the home, “anachronistic” public schools, Mormonism (which he said is considered “a dangerous cult” by some Christians), and President Obama (whom he obliquely and oddly compared to Hitler and accused of having “some phony theology”).
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Ping for those interested. This is the kind of opposition we can expect from the left wing... it’s actually a pretty good piece deescribing Rick Santorum’s conservative religious views in ways that make him sound like a good solid guy who will appeal not only to Roman Catholics but also to evangelicals.
Unfortunately it’s a loser in the general - and I mean the “unfortunately”, by the way. We have to fix the fact that our country and government is crumbling before we can start working on the people or there won’t be a country or government by the time the people regain their senses.
And yes, the NYT can go to hell.
While I tend to agree with Rick has he not heard about casting pearls before swine or being as wise as a serpent and as gentle as a dove.
Mel
I agree with you about Santorum’s enemies. I had always heard that when America was in a crisis, a leader emerges. Sadly, I don’t get that impression from any of them. God help us. (Which makes me a religous nut to the Times, I’d imagine.)
A glimpse of the coverage Santorum would receive in the General.
I agree with what you said, except you have the cart before the horse.
A morally debased society created this mess, and now you expect them to fix the problem? In the word of that great philosopher, John Wayne, “Not hardly”
He “cast these pearls” before a conservative Catholic audience. Your would be right if he had made the speech at Georgetown.
FReepmail “Antoninus” to be added or removed.
Maybe Santorum will inherit Bush’s title of “Dangerous Christian”, still the best compliment on the planet.
Thanks for the ping.
I think if there’s a dangerous republican religious fanatic in the race, it’s Romney. Anyone who can’t break free from such an easily perceptible set of falsehoods would make a very lousy president.
I will bet this debate will be as poorly watched as the last few and will do little to alter the landscape. The last debate had a grand total of 5 million people. Shows about shopping with coupons do better. If one thinks this debate will get them out of almost single digits and overtake the entire field, they are mistaken.
In typical liberal fashion Dowd assumes that because she is liberal every in America agrees with her except of course Santorum and a few bible thumpers. Got news for you Dowd. Far more Americans believe in satan then believe in you......
Santorum is hitting it out of the park. People like Dowd just can not see that because they live in such an isolated world
Newt won that one and I suspect the performance may well propel him forward and back into 1st place. I’m not counting Rick out just yet, but he messed up his prime shot to close the deal, tonight.
***I like to check intrade for changes after a debate. After all, it isn’t idealogy that drives them, it’s money. Tonight it looks like Romney won, Santorum lost. Gingrich did not move.
Politics - 2012 US Primaries
Arizona Primary - Winner (Republican)
Contract Bid Ask Last Vol Chge
ARIZONA.ROMNEY
Mitt Romney to win the 2012 Arizona Primary M Trade 93.1 94.3 93.3 5122 +11.8
ARIZONA.SANTORUM
Rick Santorum to win the 2012 Arizona Primary M Trade 4.4 5.0 4.9 5700 -14.4
ARIZONA.GINGRICH
Newt Gingrich to win the 2012 Arizona Primary M Trade 0.4 0.5 0.5 2025 +0.2
It’s by Maureen Dowd - no further reading necessary.
that poor old maid should lay off the booze...
“Since when...has sensuality been a vice,,,?”
Apparently she lacks a literate education. Sensuality (Luxury/Lust) has always been one of the Seven Deady Sins.
Let them do an article about what the LDS really believe now during the primaries. That would blow most Americans away. They likely would do that article if their hopeful, worst candidate Romney were to win; pull it out to ridicule him running against their love interest, Obama. May they never get that chance.
My scoring of the debate:
Newt
Ron
Mitt
Rick
Santorum came across as an ass. Newt came across as an adult with knowledge and vision.
Someone please tell this tired old bitch to just shut up and go away......finally?
I think freepers need to start plying the NYT with our comments. Almost every comment is hatefully leftist that I read through. I wonder if that is about all they let in. The comment ability is closed on this article or they would have heard from me.
Exactly...and adding insult to injury he even lambasted Protestants let alone the unchurched. It was a bad move and alienated many as though he was Judge and Jury of the masses.....what he dished out was not delivered as "pearls"....more like take your medicine and if it makes you throw up so be it.
I guess Newt doesn’t have to be worried about being treated negatively by the press.
I don't agree on this. Rick Santorum was speaking at Ave Maria University, a conservative Roman Catholic school, about why he believes Roman Catholicism has the answers to the modern American cultural collapse. That's not casting pearls before swine; he's doing what most of us would do before an audience that largely agreed with us already, basically “firing up the base.” Even if he was saying, “this is bitter medicine, you need to swallow it,” that would be entirely appropriate in a speech to a conservative likeminded institution.
What makes the liberals think they've found a “smoking gun” in this speech at Ave Maria University is they think they've found what Santorum really thinks about Protestants when he's speaking to a Roman Catholic audience.
The interesting thing is that Santorum is saying the same thing about liberal Protestants that we evangelical Protestants say about liberal Protestants! Apparently the leftists in our intellectual elites aren't aware that much worse things get said about liberalism on a regular basis from evangelical pulpits than anything Santorum said.
Now it wouldn't surprise me at all if somewhere, somehow, Rick Santorum has given a speech in his many decades of public life saying he agreed with the Council of Trent and believes Protestant doctrine is dangerously wrong and Protestant church members are not in a right relationship with God because they have not joined the Holy Mother Church.
My reaction would be, “So what?”
Santorum is not a member of a nondenominational megachurch somewhere which doesn't have a clear doctrinal stance beyond the basics of the faith. He is a baptized, catechized, confirmed, Mass-going practicing Roman Catholic, and that means he's a member of a hierarchical church which values ecclesiastical authority and church tradition dating back two thousand years. I assume be believes what his church teaches, and has the decency to stay quiet in public if he does disagree with something. His church is wrong on a lot of things — there are reasons I am a Protestant — but that doesn't mean evangelical Protestants and conservative Roman Catholics can't work together on areas where we **DO** agree in the culture war.
As evangelicals, most of us decided two generations ago that we could work with Roman Catholics despite our disagreements. I think most of us who have much experience in the pro-life movement watching Roman Catholics pray the Rosary and invoke Mary and the saints during vigils at abortion clinics will give Santorum a fair amount of latitude even if some real criticisms show up by him about evangelical doctrine.
In other words, according to Maureen Dowd believing Catholics need not apply.
Excellent post! May your tribe increase.
Translation:
We be PRACTICING on Rick; awaiting Mitt, who will REALLY getting some serious VETTING.
The kind we did NOT do with our boy Barak!
1 John 2:16
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.
A mere SNIPPET of what MITT would have coming at him!
Your last two paragraphs summed it up quite well.
Thank you.
The audience at Ave Maria is not swine.
They are not CINOs.
“Jane, you ignorant slut”.
(Classic SNL)
We can’t fix the country unless the people make a spiritual turn. Morality and the government/economy are related. The people reap what they sow.
BTW, did you notice how Rick really gathered himself when the talk went to morals/pro-life/amniocentesis. I remember that line, “**I'll** go out....”
“Courage” is an apt descriptive.
CZ-J rules!
Oh, and Maureen ...... "Michael Douglas".
How soon people forget what Romney did to the then frontrunner in a prior debate. And how the frontrunner reacted.
The leftist media digs up comments by Rick from several years ago, asks him about it, and when he answers, then ask why it’s all he talks about.
Note that Rick did not comment on the parishoners at mainstream Protestant churches, but on the officialdom.
Anybody here go to an Episcopal church, perhaps with an openly gay minister whose partner cohabitates? ELCA? Any denomination in the WCC?
Note that Rick did not comment on the parishoners at mainstream Protestant churches, but on the officialdom.
Anybody here go to an Episcopal church, perhaps with an openly gay minister whose partner cohabitates? ELCA? Any denomination in the WCC?
Note that Rick did not comment on the parishoners at mainstream Protestant churches, but on the officialdom.
Anybody here go to an Episcopal church, perhaps with an openly gay minister whose partner cohabitates? ELCA? Any denomination in the WCC?
Oops.
Twice for emphasis, thrice for dementia or clubby fingers.
Dowd is just part of the media attacks on Santorum. Ever since he started picking up steam, but not before, Leno and Letterman have been mocking and attacking him (along with Romney and Newt) extensively with comments that are vicious and way over the top. The amount of time spent on the GOP candidates should qualify those two late night shows as political shows. Of course, Obama is dealt with respect.
Maureen Down is a good wordsmith.
Maureen Down is a pathetic political commentator.
The result: well worded pap.
LOL that was a good one! While I might agree with you on the numbers of viewers not being very significant I would also counter that those who do consistently watch tend to be the more hard core activists who will reach out to the folks they know in their networks and movement might come from that area.
That would be a very good idea.
I am a regular reader of the New York Times and have been for many years. Our future at Fort Leonard Wood depends on federal government decisions so I have to read the national media to know what they are talking about and to understand how they think.
If we as conservatives are going to effectively participate in national politics we need to understand the way the other side thinks — not only what they do and why what they are doing is wrong, but the rationale and logic behind their thoughts and actions. These people are not stupid, they've largely taken over our universities and education system, and if we're going to take back our country we need to read what they write and understand it.
We already know that writers for the national media read Free Republic. They're doing the right thing to understand the other side. We need to be doing the same.
34 posted on Thursday, February 23, 2012 6:34:46 AM by Elsie: “Your last two paragraphs summed it up quite well. Thank you.”
42 posted on Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:18:32 AM by Lauren BaRecall: “*standing ovation*”
Thank you both, and anyone else I may have missed specifically thanking.
29 posted on Thursday, February 23, 2012 6:19:06 AM by don-o: “Excellent post! May your tribe increase.”
Thanks... though we're too old to have that increase naturally, we expect to bring most of our nieces and nephews from Korea to live in our home in the United States and will likely be adopting at least some of them. I guess that means there may be a “tribe” someday of Koreans with an Italian last name.
TMI, probably, but some on Free Republic know me and have made private jokes about how a short black-haired Italian is getting lots of short black-haired kids with yellow skin and almond eyes. At least we can say both Italians and Koreans love to eat lots of garlic ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
