Santorum says Protestants are "gone from the world of Christianity."

  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Feb 19, 2012 6:43 PM GMT
    Santorum's evangelical Protestant supporters might be suprised to find out they are not Christian at all -- according to Santorum's definition.

    "Protestantism in this country is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it."
    Rick Santorum from a speech he gave at a Catholic school in 2008

    On today’s Up with Chris Hayes, the host unveiled a 2008 talk by Rick Santorum that could possibly be the only thing to make him lose the American religious vote: one in which he condemns “mainline protestantism,” of all things, and claims it is now “gone from the world of Christianity.” Needless to say, these sorts of words coming from a Catholic cannot inspire confidence in the sort of voter that looked askance at John F. Kennedy for being a Papist.

    The speech is from a 2008 event at Ave Maria College in Florida.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-hayes-digs-up-2008-santorum-speech-stating-protestants-are-gone-from-the-world-of-christianity/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2012 6:47 PM GMT
    KissTheSky saidSantorum's evangelical Protestant supporters might be suprised to find out they are not Christian at all -- according to Santorum's definition.

    "Protestantism in this country is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it."
    Rick Santorum from a speech he gave at a Catholic school in 2008

    On today’s Up with Chris Hayes, the host unveiled a 2008 talk by Rick Santorum that could possibly be the only thing to make him lose the American religious vote: one in which he condemns “mainline protestantism,” of all things, and claims it is now “gone from the world of Christianity.” Needless to say, these sorts of words coming from a Catholic cannot inspire confidence in the sort of voter that looked askance at John F. Kennedy for being a Papist.

    The speech is from a 2008 event at Ave Maria College in Florida.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-hayes-digs-up-2008-santorum-speech-stating-protestants-are-gone-from-the-world-of-christianity/

    opppsss... Well, apparently Sanitorium doesn't think anyone he doesn't approve is a Christian, he just accused President Obama of not being one. Imagine, if we vote for Sanitorium we get a 2-for-1 deal: a President, and a High Priest.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 19, 2012 7:32 PM GMT
    If he becomes the republican nominee, the big wigs do realize that he's gonna be screwed the second any one compiles the quotes from him and his advisors, right? I mean, I don't see how many republicans/conservatives, except for the farthest fringe members who also happen to be Catholics, could ever be motivated to vote for him. He's now basically said: I don't like women and non-catholic denominations. He's killing the voting bloc.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2012 7:47 PM GMT
    Sanitation is just passing more ammo (if more were needed) for Obama to use against him in the Presidential debates. I can't wait for that one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2012 7:50 PM GMT
    Not surprising. Catholic doctrine basically says that they are the only true christianity and that other forms of it aren't legit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2012 8:10 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidNot surprising. Catholic doctrine basically says that they are the only true christianity and that other forms of it aren't legit.

    Except... doesn't US Constitution "doctrine" also say that the government isn't supposed to take sides and play favorites in matters of religion? You, know, that pesky separation of church & state thing.

    So don't these statements by Santorum disqualify him from Federal office, since he seems incapable of making the religion versus state distinction? And if he doesn't have an issue in that area, why is he using spiritual beliefs and doctrine as a campaign weapon?

    The President is supposed to lead all the people equally, not baptize us into his choice of faith.
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Feb 19, 2012 8:16 PM GMT
    nanidesukedo saidIf he becomes the republican nominee, the big wigs do realize that he's gonna be screwed the second any one compiles the quotes from him and his advisors, right? I mean, I don't see how many republicans/conservatives, except for the farthest fringe members who also happen to be Catholics, could ever be motivated to vote for him. He's now basically said: I don't like women and non-catholic denominations. He's killing the voting bloc.


    I agree. I think the Dems are deliberately sitting on a mountain of damaging info about Santorum (and a wealth of bizarre quotes), hoping he gets the nomination rather than Romney.
    Santorum is a complete extremist and un-electable, in my opinion.
    Catholics who go around telling Protestants they are not really Christians do not win elections.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2012 10:09 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    mocktwinkie saidNot surprising. Catholic doctrine basically says that they are the only true christianity and that other forms of it aren't legit.

    Except... doesn't US Constitution "doctrine" also say that the government isn't supposed to take sides and play favorites in matters of religion? You, know, that pesky separation of church & state thing.

    So don't these statements by Santorum disqualify him from Federal office, since he seems incapable of making the religion versus state distinction? And if he doesn't have an issue in that area, why is he using spiritual beliefs and doctrine as a campaign weapon?

    The President is supposed to lead all the people equally, not baptize us into his choice of faith.


    Which brings up the whole freedom of religion thingy. If he brings his religion into government automatically it means Islam and other religions as well.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2012 10:25 PM GMT
    Not a great quotation to have surface.

    But keep in mind that most of the "mainline" Protestant churches are not the evangelicals who provide Santorum's non-Catholic support. Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, non-Southern Baptists, and Lutherans are what's usually implied by "mainline."

    But it's also worth remembering that within many evangelical churches there are some very vocal people who believe that Catholics are not Christians. So there is plenty of room for an embarrassing fight to break out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2012 11:14 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    mocktwinkie saidNot surprising. Catholic doctrine basically says that they are the only true christianity and that other forms of it aren't legit.

    Except... doesn't US Constitution "doctrine" also say that the government isn't supposed to take sides and play favorites in matters of religion? You, know, that pesky separation of church & state thing.

    So don't these statements by Santorum disqualify him from Federal office, since he seems incapable of making the religion versus state distinction? And if he doesn't have an issue in that area, why is he using spiritual beliefs and doctrine as a campaign weapon?

    The President is supposed to lead all the people equally, not baptize us into his choice of faith.


    I completely agree!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2012 2:46 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Art_Deco said
    mocktwinkie saidNot surprising. Catholic doctrine basically says that they are the only true christianity and that other forms of it aren't legit.

    Except... doesn't US Constitution "doctrine" also say that the government isn't supposed to take sides and play favorites in matters of religion? You, know, that pesky separation of church & state thing.

    So don't these statements by Santorum disqualify him from Federal office, since he seems incapable of making the religion versus state distinction? And if he doesn't have an issue in that area, why is he using spiritual beliefs and doctrine as a campaign weapon?

    The President is supposed to lead all the people equally, not baptize us into his choice of faith.


    I completely agree!




    MEEEE TOOOOO !!!

    and I'll add that I don't even think most Catholics would be impressed with this kind of talk about protestants. Much less his talk about contraception being wrong. He has sunk his boat and personally I have to wonder what in the hell the repubs are going to do for a viable candidate. THEY ALL SUCK !!

    PS -- I still think Ron Paul is by far the least 'bought off' candidate, therefore the most likely to do the most good for the US, based on what's good for the citizens, not the corps and other monied lobby's. Think how much good all that war money would do spent at home. We liberals that fear some of his libertarian ideas where social programs are concerned could moderate his wish list. Working with Paul would be far better than getting just another status quo war and corporate shill from either the dem or the repub party.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2012 7:46 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    KissTheSky saidSantorum's evangelical Protestant supporters might be suprised to find out they are not Christian at all -- according to Santorum's definition.

    "Protestantism in this country is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it."
    Rick Santorum from a speech he gave at a Catholic school in 2008

    On today’s Up with Chris Hayes, the host unveiled a 2008 talk by Rick Santorum that could possibly be the only thing to make him lose the American religious vote: one in which he condemns “mainline protestantism,” of all things, and claims it is now “gone from the world of Christianity.” Needless to say, these sorts of words coming from a Catholic cannot inspire confidence in the sort of voter that looked askance at John F. Kennedy for being a Papist.

    The speech is from a 2008 event at Ave Maria College in Florida.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-hayes-digs-up-2008-santorum-speech-stating-protestants-are-gone-from-the-world-of-christianity/

    opppsss... Well, apparently Sanitorium doesn't think anyone he doesn't approve is a Christian, he just accused President Obama of not being one. Imagine, if we vote for Sanitorium we get a 2-for-1 deal: a President, and a High Priest.


    High on what?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2012 7:48 AM GMT
    JPtheBITCH said
    KissTheSky said
    Santorum is a complete extremist and un-electable, in my opinion.

    That one Republican (nameless) senator who said that if Santorum is the nominee they'll lose 35 states? I think he was wrong by 15.


    losing 20 states is potentially a problem icon_wink.gif
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Feb 20, 2012 11:03 AM GMT
    As a Canadian who has been following the Republican presidential race, I have to say that American politics might actually be more complicated than the human body.

    I'll be upfront and say that fiscally, I am very conservative (with a few oddball exceptions like public healthcare) and socially, very liberal. My question surrounds religion in society in general, but in politics more specifically. I could care less what religion people choose to follow. One of my best girlfriends is a practicing Muslim who probably texts me once every week or two as I'm going to bed saying she said a prayer for me - that I find a man who respects me and challenges me to be a better me, and who will let me do the same for them.

    My point in saying that is not that a Muslim girl supports me, an openly gay man, in my pursuit of love, but that a human being looked beyond the walls of the societal group that we wound up in. Behind every Muslim, Christian, Gay, Liberal, Conservative, Protestant, Catholic, etc... is a human being with unique thoughts, and to assert that everyone who fits into a certain group has exactly the same thoughts is nuts. When people introduce themselves, they don't say "Hi, I'm Protestant" or "I'm gay...". I say "I'm Max". Right then and there, I and anyone who introduces them self as a person rather than a representative of a group creates them self in the minds of others as unique and worth exploring further. When you introduce yourself as a group, people immediately compare your group with theirs and others and reject or accept you on that basis alone. If I had done that with my friend, well..... we wouldn't be friends.

    Bringing this back to politics, my big question is this: Why do American (and not exclusively, but in this case) politicians brand themselves by groups rather than by appealing to society as a unique individual who can lead individual people who are members of thousands of different groups instead of turning half of those groups off when it doesn't even matter? There are plenty of devout religious people here in Canada who would act exactly the same, but the nature of our politics is that people generally portray themselves as an individual (whether it's actually them or not is a different story...) and build credibility for themselves and their party by acting as a person and not a group, why is it different immediately south of the border?



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2012 3:31 PM GMT
    Maxterguson - I think the problem of 'group think' is usually based on a lack of good self perception in individuals, a lot of people feel comfort in belonging to a group because of their own deficiency in their own eyes. Not everyone falls in that group, because some like a group for its social interactions.

    For some reason whether its churches, civic groups and other groups all the way up to entire country's, have the 'our god is greater than your god' and 'my group is better than your group' mentality. To some degree group think seems to be very common to man, and only drops where there is more interaction, the more isolated the stronger the group think.

    Back to church groups though, I think it is largely based on ignorance, ignorance of other belief systems, ignorance of the world around them and ignorance of how they relate to other groups along with the results of not relating and learning about and from other groups.

    If you take a hard look at the areas of US christian involvement in combining political/christian group think that are the worst, you'll find those areas to be less educated, thus more ignorant areas of the Country. These are the areas where this American Exceptionalism group think is the strongest too. (to me that is really ignorant, because its turning into an excuse for American Colonializm)

    One of the primary beliefs of Christianity is its inherent need to spread its 'saving grace' from its God to all the world, all must be saved and its their duty to 'save' as many as possible. This also plays a huge role in the group think mentality as apposed to individual thinking.

    by now you can propbably tell that I think religions are more a problem in world political interactions than a blessing, and greatly to blame for group think based world problems.

    Think about how many fewer conflicts would exist if religions weren't involved in the current battlegrounds of the world, the Middle East Particularly.

    Think about how much less divisive our American politics would be if Religions weren't involved.

    Taking a hard look at religions doesn't speak well for religions and their group think tendencies, Santorum is just the best example politically of the results. He's a scary politician, a dangerous one at that.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2012 4:09 PM GMT
    Kobaltjak saidNot a great quotation to have surface.

    But keep in mind that most of the "mainline" Protestant churches are not the evangelicals who provide Santorum's non-Catholic support. Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, non-Southern Baptists, and Lutherans are what's usually implied by "mainline."

    But it's also worth remembering that within many evangelical churches there are some very vocal people who believe that Catholics are not Christians. So there is plenty of room for an embarrassing fight to break out.


    I believe the old terms for Catholics along those lines were "Papists" and "Unholy Dogs of the Whore of Babylon", and "Eternally Damned Mackerel Snappers".

    Among others, like "Robed Kiddy-Fiddlers", and "Conductors on the Devil's Train to Hell".

    Loves me some classic anti-Catholic invective. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2012 4:16 PM GMT
    maxferguson saidAs a Canadian who has been following the Republican presidential race, I have to say that American politics might actually be more complicated than the human body.

    I'll be upfront and say that fiscally, I am very conservative (with a few oddball exceptions like public healthcare) and socially, very liberal. My question surrounds religion in society in general, but in politics more specifically. I could care less what religion people choose to follow. One of my best girlfriends is a practicing Muslim who probably texts me once every week or two as I'm going to bed saying she said a prayer for me - that I find a man who respects me and challenges me to be a better me, and who will let me do the same for them.

    My point in saying that is not that a Muslim girl supports me, an openly gay man, in my pursuit of love, but that a human being looked beyond the walls of the societal group that we wound up in. Behind every Muslim, Christian, Gay, Liberal, Conservative, Protestant, Catholic, etc... is a human being with unique thoughts, and to assert that everyone who fits into a certain group has exactly the same thoughts is nuts. When people introduce themselves, they don't say "Hi, I'm Protestant" or "I'm gay...". I say "I'm Max". Right then and there, I and anyone who introduces them self as a person rather than a representative of a group creates them self in the minds of others as unique and worth exploring further. When you introduce yourself as a group, people immediately compare your group with theirs and others and reject or accept you on that basis alone. If I had done that with my friend, well..... we wouldn't be friends.

    Bringing this back to politics, my big question is this: Why do American (and not exclusively, but in this case) politicians brand themselves by groups rather than by appealing to society as a unique individual who can lead individual people who are members of thousands of different groups instead of turning half of those groups off when it doesn't even matter? There are plenty of devout religious people here in Canada who would act exactly the same, but the nature of our politics is that people generally portray themselves as an individual (whether it's actually them or not is a different story...) and build credibility for themselves and their party by acting as a person and not a group, why is it different immediately south of the border?





    I can answer this. I totally understand where you are coming from. The reason is because a fiscal conservative platform without wedge issues such as religion or something else will never win in an election. The general tendency is for people to want something or feel entitled to benefits or handouts and therefore they would naturally gravitate towards voting democratic or liberal. Conservatives have to use nasty wedge issues to try and win elections, if they don't they will never win. It's the sad horrible truth of it all. It's like two parents with a child and one says "I'll give you whatever you want" (even if it's not sustainable for the household) and the other says "I'm giving you nothing, you must work for everything you earn". Which parent is going to win the favor of the child? The parent who wants the child to work would have to use wedge issues to win the favor of the child over.

    Conservatives know they are losing on the gay issue so they will have to find something else soon.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2012 4:24 PM GMT


    Mock said, " It's like two parents with a child and one says "I'll give you whatever you want" (even if it's not sustainable for the household) and the other says "I'm giving you nothing, you must work for everything you earn".


    That's an example of two extremely dysfunctional parents.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Feb 20, 2012 4:48 PM GMT
    Every time I see Santorum on TV now it just makes my skin crawl. He's just all kinds of annoying. It's a good thing I can't get in the debate here on Wednesday, because I swear I would probably BOO him. icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2012 9:40 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    Mock said, " It's like two parents with a child and one says "I'll give you whatever you want" (even if it's not sustainable for the household) and the other says "I'm giving you nothing, you must work for everything you earn".


    That's an example of two extremely dysfunctional parents.


    I'm using extreme examples to drive the point home.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2012 11:23 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said

    Mock said, " It's like two parents with a child and one says "I'll give you whatever you want" (even if it's not sustainable for the household) and the other says "I'm giving you nothing, you must work for everything you earn".


    That's an example of two extremely dysfunctional parents.


    I'm using extreme examples to drive the point home.


    Well, yes Mock, although to drive the point home better you should have made the dysfunction equal on both sides, which you didn't.

    Like so: "It's like two parents with a child and one says "I'll give you whatever you want" (even if it's not sustainable for the household and ruining the child) and the other says "I'm giving you nothing, you must work for everything you earn, even if you're sick, or disabled, or no one will hire you."

    However, neither side is doing this, yet.
    If the Republican Party stopped pandering to the fanatical nut-bars for votes, they'd lose the first time round but quickly gain momentum as some, who vote Democratic solely because of the right wing nut-bars, will vote conservatively with a clear conscience in regards to their ethics.

    As well, that huge group of nut-bars the Republican candidates are pandering to, do you really think if the Party stopped pandering to them they'd suddenly vote Democratic?

    I think not. They'd go ahead and vote Republican anyway.