Posted on 02/18/2012 11:09:26 AM PST by Steelfish
Rick Santorum Questions Obama's Christian Values By STEVE PEOPLES — White House candidate Rick Santorum on Saturday questioned President Barack Obama's Christian values and attacked GOP rival Mitt Romney's Olympics leadership as he courted tea party activists and evangelical voters in Ohio, "ground zero" in the 2012 nomination fight.
Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator known for his social conservative policies, said that Obama's agenda is "not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible.
A different theology."
Trailing Romney in money and campaign resources, Santorum is depending on the tea party movement and religious groups to deliver a victory March 6 in Ohio, one of Super Tuesday's biggest prizes.
More delegates will be awarded in Ohio than in any other state except Georgia in the opening months of the Republican campaign. Ohio and Georgia are two of the 10 contests scheduled for March 6, a benchmark for the primary campaign that often decides who can continue to the next level.
Even as he criticized Obama, Santorum also went after one of Romney's most promoted achievements — his leadership at the 2002 Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Sobering reminder, good FReeper, but your audience is mostly deaf and blind. They failed to hear or see a word you said, and what you said was the absolute truth!
Personally, I think it crosses the line to question someone else’s spiritual beliefs. None of us can know what’s in the heart of someone else. It’s off base to question Santorum’s or Romney’s or Bush’s or anyone else’s Christian values, IMO. And it doesn’t help the economy, either.
Via the most recent Econ/youov interactive poll, only 14% of respondents when asked if they thought Obama was religious, thought he is.
No fan of Santorum. But if he makes Rev Wright an issue I am on board. The idea that this guy became president after sitting in that church for 20 years is sickening. I could never wrap my head around how McCain et al never made it an issue.
Obama is scum not because of his faith or lack of it, but because he is bankrupting America, his divisive class warfare, which rips the social tissue of the American people, destroying its national defense and diminishing its status in the world.
These are the points a candidate must address. I am not interested in theological discussions. Each person’s faith is a PRIVATE matter. I am not Christian either, but Jewish. What is Santorum going to do, burn me at the stake?
Power or the hint of it goes to the head of every darn politican and Rick is now feeling the “Glow of Love”, oh boy the rich deep feeling of leading in the polls makes me want to say what ever crosses my mind - never mind how others will think, let me “express myself.” How many folks like Newt or Phil Gramham could not shut up...so they are a blip on the stage. /rant about foot in mouth policticans off
PSYCHO-FREEP - This is what I mentioned to you in another thread. While Santorum is sanctimonious and overbearing relative to religion. Which drives me crazy .
If the lib media makes his faith and values an issue, he can shoot right back about Rev Wright. And they will shut up real quick.
Remember this is capping off a week when Santorum was mocked and blasted by Obama’s hacks for his religion. Meanwhile Obama skates on his radical Liberation Theology - which he has rammed down our throat via Obamacare and all the spending. It’s all social justice, steal from the doers and give to the takers.
Obama is all about promoting Godless acts. How could anyone consider him to be a Christian. End of story.
You are absolutely correct.
Santorum, as the front runner, has the opportunity to hit Obama hard where he cannot defend himself (jobs, spending, deficits, energy, foreign policy, etc.) and no one can come to his aid, not even the media.
Instead, Santorum throws jabs at the one and only thing that will drag every single liberal out from under their slimy rocks to rise up and attack back on behalf of Obama — social issues.
Unbelievable.
The truth is Hussein is a muslim.
How many Christians named Hussein do you know?
“Santorum, as the front runner, has the opportunity to hit Obama hard where he cannot defend himself (jobs, spending, deficits, energy, foreign policy, etc.) and no one can come to his aid, not even the media.
Instead, Santorum throws jabs at the one and only thing that will drag every single liberal out from under their slimy rocks to rise up and attack back on behalf of Obama — social issues.
Unbelievable.”
Which proves he is a pompous, pedantic, amateurish ass.
“Phony Theology”? “Not..Based On Bible”?
Both apply to either BarryHussein or Romney.
Rick Santorum will never be president for a whole host of reasons. I am not a hater, and I will vote for the man if I have to. Listen, Rick has yet to explain away his 18 point loss in his last Senate re-election bid. Saying it was a bad year for republicans is not enough. Many incumbents won that year, and no setting senator took a loss like he did. There were valid reasons that he would lose and badly, but not that badly. Could it be that the voters were just tired of him? I am. Like I said I am no hater, I just would really like to win. I am not going to vote for Mitt Romney under any circumstances. And I will vote for Mr. Santorum if pressed, but the man that can win and articulate our message is Newt Gingrich.
The religion message could get us in trouble. Don’t flame me, I am a serious Christian and it is one of the things I like about Rick Santorum. But we are not selecting a Pastor, or a spouse. Let’s be careful. That is all I am saying.
If theology is that important to Saint Rick, I’m not too sure why he endorsed a Mormon for President in 2008.
You wrote: “Via the most recent Econ/youov interactive poll, only 14% of respondents when asked if they thought Obama was religious, thought he is.”
That poll reflects people’s “gut instinct”, which is usually right. bttt
The Gospel According to Obama (It’s now impossible to be a functioning “religious institution.”)
National Review ^ | 02/10/2012 | Charles Krauthhammer
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290699/gospel-according-obama-charles-krauthammer
At the National Prayer Breakfast last week, seeking theological underpinning for his drive to raise taxes on the rich, President Obama invoked the highest possible authority. His policy, he testified “as a Christian,” “coincides with Jesus’ teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’”
Now, I’m no theologian, but I’m fairly certain that neither Jesus nor his rabbinic forebears, when speaking of giving, meant some obligation to the state. You tithe the priest, not the taxman.
The Judeo-Christian tradition commands personal generosity as represented, for example, by the biblical injunction against retrieving any sheaf left behind while harvesting one’s own field. That is for the gleaners “the poor and the alien” (Leviticus 19:10). Like Ruth in the field of Boaz. As far as I can tell, that charitable transaction involved no mediation by the IRS.
But no matter. Let’s assume that Obama has biblical authority for hiking the marginal tax rate exactly 4.6 points for couples making more than $250,000 (depending, of course, on the prevailing shekel-to-dollar exchange rate). Let’s stipulate that Obama’s prayer-breakfast invocation of religion as vindicating his politics was not, God forbid, crass, hypocritical, self-serving electioneering, but a sincere expression of a social-gospel Christianity that sees good works as central to the very concept of religiosity.
Fine. But this Gospel according to Obama has a rival the newly revealed Gospel according to Sebelius, over which has erupted quite a contretemps. By some peculiar logic, it falls to the health-and-human-services secretary to promulgate the definition of “religious” for the purposes, for example, of exempting religious institutions from certain regulatory dictates.
Such exemptions are granted in grudging recognition that, whereas the rest of civil society may be broken to the will of the state’s regulators, our quaint Constitution grants special autonomy to religious institutions.
Accordingly, it would be a mockery of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment if, for example, the Catholic Church were required by law to freely provide such “health-care services” (in secularist parlance) as contraception, sterilization, and pharmacological abortion to which Catholicism is doctrinally opposed as a grave contravention of its teachings about the sanctity of life.
Ah. But there would be no such Free Exercise violation if the institutions so mandated are deemed, by regulatory fiat, not religious.
And thus, the word came forth from Sebelius decreeing the exact criteria required (a) to meet her definition of “religious” and thus (b) to qualify for a modicum of independence from newly enacted state control of American health care, under which the aforementioned Sebelius and her phalanx of experts determine everything from who is to be covered, to which treatments are to be guaranteed free-of-charge.
Criterion 1: A “religious institution” must have “the inculcation of religious values as its purpose.” But that’s not the purpose of Catholic charities; it’s to give succor to the poor. That’s not the purpose of Catholic hospitals; it’s to give succor to the sick. Therefore, they don’t qualify as “religious” and therefore can be required, among other things, to provide free morning-after abortifacients.
Criterion 2: Any exempt institution must be one that “primarily employs” and “primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets.” Catholic soup kitchens do not demand religious IDs from either the hungry they feed or the custodians they employ. Catholic charities and hospitals even Catholic schools do not turn away Hindu or Jew.
Their vocation is universal, precisely the kind of universal love-thy-neighbor vocation that is the very definition of religiosity as celebrated by the Gospel of Obama. Yet according to the Gospel of Sebelius, these very same Catholic institutions are not religious at all under the secularist assumption that religion is what happens on Sunday under some Gothic spire, while good works are “social services” that are properly rendered up unto Caesar.
This all would be merely the story of contradictory theologies, except for this: Sebelius is Obama’s appointee. She works for him. These regulations were his call. Obama authored both gospels.
Therefore: To flatter his faith-breakfast guests and justify his tax policies, Obama declares good works to be the essence of religiosity. Yet he turns around and, through Sebelius, tells the faithful who engage in good works that what they’re doing is not religion at all. You want to do religion? Get thee to a nunnery. You want shelter from the power of the state? Get out of your soup kitchen and back to your pews. Outside, Leviathan rules.
Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist
<>
Not to miss:
Obama, Abortion and Infanticide
By Andrew C. McCarthy February 9, 2012 6:00 P.M.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290712/more-obama-abortion-and-infanticide-andrew-c-mccarthy
In addition to what I just posted-— [HERE] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290707/when-obama-voted-infanticide-andrew-c-mccarthy -—about the facts that were already known about Obama’s abortion extremism before the 2008 election, here are two other essays worth reading from October 2008 both by our friend Robby George, both available at the Public Discourse website from The Witherspoon Institute:
The first is “Obama’s Abortion Extremism.” http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2008/10/133
The second, which Robby wrote with Yuval, is “Obama and Infanticide.” http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2008/10/282
Roh Roh, St. Santorum better check the bottom of his shoes, he just stepped in somthin’
Think about this. This could be a brilliant strategy!
If Obama and his minions decide to make Santorum’s religion an issue. Our side can make Obama’s hate whitey, God d@#n America religion an issue. They can focus on how every thing he has done has been to punish this country.
The plunging of our nation into a deeper recession, far deeper deficit, eliminating jobs, throwing millions away on crony-phony green companies, forcing taxpayers to prop up failed businesses and unions, killing our energy independence, forcing reliance on foreign nations as well as decimating our military readiness, resources, cohesion, destroying more jobs and putting more Americans on the dole than any president in history is all an attempt to punish America. He is systematically removing our freedoms taking our strengths such as healthcare and creating a third world nation here. Obama hates us. That is how we know Obama and that is how he should be portrayed. He is acting on his own religious belief that America needs to be punished. That is the only explanation for what Obama has done to this country.
Tie this to him. Every time they want to bring up gays or abortion, we’ll bring up deficits, lack of jobs and energy dependence. They lose. We win.
“Black Liberation Theology” borrows WAY more from Islam than from Christianity, and is unremitting in its anti-Semitism. Based on the ethnocentric view that the blacks of Africa were in reality the Chosen People, and that the Christ figure was not Aramaic at all, but in reality a black man, the concepts are but a slight displacement from the widely held belief among Muslims that THEY are the center of the universe, all else are in error.
Another of the roots of Black Liberation Theology is found in the writings of Karl Marx, and an almost ant hill kind of thinking. The belief system is very big on the platitudes of sharing and common sacrifice, but some always end up in sacrificing far more and sharing far less than others, the idealistic nature of the goals be damned.
The very thing about Christianity is that it is NOT restricted to only one or a very few ethnic groups, and its moral compass does not rely on one’s birth or station in life. “Self-evident” is not at all that easily discerned by large numbers of people, most of whom have never been actively taught the bedrock foundations of Christian faith. Our Constitution may only be read with understanding of its basic premise, that natural rights are endowed by the Creator, and not conferred by some imperfect government of Man.
“Which proves he is a pompous, pedantic, amateurish ass.”
I might not go quite THAT far but I definitely understand where you are coming from :-)
Only Republicans can allow Democrats to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
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.