Replies

(Me): "Santorum elected to cover this angle (at least for today) -- and you critiqued him for it."

(You) You darn right I did. That's a valid political critique. You still have not cited an example of me attacking his religious convictions.

Mariner...what if I said to you:

Mariner elected to cover this supposedly "negative" angle about Santorum (at least for today)
-- focusing on Santorum speaking theologically re: his political foe --
...& Mariner got critiqued for posting this (???)

Mariner...it seems to me...that the critiques aimed at you on this thread come from a well-integrated posture of theo-political.

Posters aren't simply reacting negatively only to your political comments, but rather your seeming worldview of how theology & politics apparently don't mix in your eyes.

So, just as the critiques coming your way aren't "hermetically sealed" as only conveying political campaign priorities, I would surmise that your critique of Santorum comes across as a similar mixture...IOW, it, indeed appears to be based from a political-theological admixture.

(I'm certainly willing to listen to you tell a different tale...since I don't know you all that well)

I'm simply being forthright on how your comments have come across...

For example, had Santorum spent a few seconds mentioning something you deem as less vital on the campaign trail...
-- say, unhealthy recipes being used by the White House cooks...
...While I perhaps could see how you might post a thread 'bout that, I'm not sure you would be so vested in critiquing Santorum's "recipe comment" to the point that you would launch 15 posts about that in a little over an hour!

Recipe comments couldn't be that much of a target, could it?

Oh, and just to be sure that I'm not guilty myself of downplaying theology, surely, Mariner, we could agree that God and what God values ranks a bit more consideration than "trivial" White House recipes. Does He not?

Other than that...See my tagline Q