17 Comments

Rick Santorum: Obama Agenda Not ‘Based On Bible’


And this from the guy, who if elected president, has a desire to implement his Roman Catholic beliefs on the Nation 

quote..

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Rick Santorum took his rhetoric to a new level, trying to attack President Barack Obama over the controversy between religious freedom and contraception.

“It’s not about you. It’s not about you,” Santorum said at a Tea Party rally, directing his comments at the president. “It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your job. It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology.

“The president has reached a new low in this country’s history of oppressing religious freedom that we have never seen before. If he doesn’t want to call his imposition of his values a theology that’s fine.”

“[O]bviously, he is now forcing people to do things that he believes that they have the right, that they should do,” Santorum continued to say about Obama. “The Catholic church has a Theology that says this is wrong, and he’s saying no I’ve got a different, I’ve got a different — you may want to call it a theology, you may want to call it secular values, whatever you want to call it, it’s a different moral values. And the president of the United States is exercising his values and trumping the values of the church. If you don’t want to call it a theology, I’m fine, you can have them let me know what they want to call it, but it is a different set of moral values that they are imposing on people who have a constitutional right to have their own values within the church, and that’s not a new low. That’s a reflection of exactly what … it is a new low.” (source)

I’ve stayed silent on this topic until now, but give me a break! Nuff said….

17 comments on “Rick Santorum: Obama Agenda Not ‘Based On Bible’

  1. This of course begs a question:

    If it is wrong for the President to enforce his moral views on Catholics, NOT by controlling their manner of worship, but rather their business practices, is it not then wrong for Catholics to impose their morals on non-Catholics through those very business practices? This is precisely the kind of moral confusion one encounters when one attempts to impose theology on to government and business. When a church engages in business, they can not run that business as if they are administering the church. But that is exactly what they are trying to do. As the Bible says in I Corinthians, we cannot dictate our morals to the unbelievers and we cannot separate ourselves from the need to do business with them. We should instead be concerned about the morality of those within the church, NOT those without.

  2. Well said George. Nothing to add

  3. Santorum, is living outside reality. He is appealing to the religious right that would demand the American public to accept only the teaching of a limited and narrow interpretation of Christianity. The NAR is one organization that comes to mind. The second one that comes mind is the one I am familiar with, slavery, and Negroes have their place. That was a belief of the old south based upon the King James Bible. His views are dangerous to the basic liberties of the American people. The idea of being fruitful and multiply does not mean destroy oneself (human race) in the process. The moral judgments of any Church or Dogma is based upon interpretation. His is flawed. His understanding of ecology and the dominion of the earth is in line with those who believe man can do what he wants at whatever expense. is flawed. We are living in a time of fear, and he is its messenger.

  4. let me be clear. I do not vote, but if I had a choice between Obama and Santorum I would vote for Santorum based solely on the abortion issue. However, American politics forces believers who participate into varying degrees of compromise.

    It also subtly conveys to unbelievers that Christianity is a religion of morality, and that Christians are just as obsessed with money and economics as are unbelievers. The obscene amounts of money spent on these campaigns is antithetical to every Jesus said, taught, and lived. (If that matters.)

    • Rick, I would prefer to live under communism or fascism than under a religious theocracy. Why? Because the communists and fascists are primarily concerned about political control. A Christian will certainly be persecuted by them, but usually will manage to somehow survive. But theocratists are primarily concerned about RELIGIOUS control. Unless you bow to THEIR idols, you are burned at the stake. And evangelicals are even now lining up to support theocracy. We will all pay the price if it succeeds. And the price for simply banning abortion in this manner could be ALL of our religious freedom by the time it is through. That is why I believe the whole anti-abortion/pro-life movement in this country is SO misguided. It is one thing to be militantly opposed to abortion. It is another thing to swallow a solution that is so unbiblical and ungodly that it will devour us.

    • And evangelicals are even now lining up to support theocracy. We will all pay the price if it succeeds.

      George, i 100% agree.

  5. Make no mistake about it. This issue is NOT one of religious liberty as those who are passionate about it are asserting. Rather, this is a blatant theocracy issue. The real question here is whether the Roman Church can recruit the US government to enable it to exclusively dictate morality to American citizens. This is Rome at its ugliest and deceived evangelicals are lining up to support them in legions.

    Let me attempt to illustrate my point by simply offering an example from my local community. A little over two years ago when I moved here, there were two hospitals in this town. One was a Catholic hospital and the other a private secular hospital. Within a few years of that time, the Catholic hospital almost bankrupted itself to buy the secular hospital at a price far exceeding its value. Why? According to the Catholic hospital, it was about “survival”, “efficiency”, and so forth. During the same period, the same Catholic hospital was attempting to buy up as many local medical labs and major medical practices as they could for the same nebulous reasons. Even now, they have a stated goal of buying the last remaining non-Catholic hospital in the area which is located in a city 15mi to the north of us. That would leave any non-Catholic competing institution at least 3hrs distant by road. And in at least two of those cities, the Catholic health systems are equally dominant. The Catholic Church will maintain that this is, of course, all about charity. Really?

    What if a similar situation existed except the dominating health care system was controlled by, say, an Islamic charitable institution? Would evangelicals be lining up to support THEIR religious liberty in terms of dictating health care policies? What if the dominating health care system were run by Planned Parenthood? Would the same people all line up to defend THEIR freedom of conscious issues? Or is this really just an ATTACK on religious liberties in disguise?

    The whole attack by the right on the size of government in terms of health care solutions is equally insidious. Their solution is often to turn health care over to private charities, and the first example that ALWAYS comes up is the “church” which usually turns out in practice to be the Catholic Church, which in turn expects to raise funds from not only the local community at large, but also … the government, in form of grants and various government subsidies.

    Why are evangelicals so totally blind as to what is going on here? I am not opposed to the Catholic Church owning and operating hospitals and other health care facilities. I AM stridently opposed to any attempt by ANY organization to MONOPOLIZE health care AND simultaneously co-opt government to allow them to enforce their religious agenda on everyone else in the process. And that is EXACTLY what this is about. EXACTLY.

    • Make no mistake about it. This issue is NOT one of religious liberty as those who are passionate about it are asserting. Rather, this is a blatant theocracy issue……Why are evangelicals so totally blind as to what is going on here?

      George, good question. Most evangelicals are blind to how they are being manipulated. They are like sheep following after a “bellwether”-

      “Sheepherders train a bellwether to lead the rest of the sheep, sometimes to their destruction. The leader is drilled to respond to his master’s whistle, then wherever the ‘wether’ goes, the rest of the sheep follow. By this means an entire flock is enticed to board a truck. After it is loaded, the gate is closed and then the bellwether is whisked out of the truck by a different route, only to be used to lead another flock into another truck. In this manner an entire herd has been loaded and dispatched on its way to the slaughterhouse.

      God’s people often follow a leader of Satan’s choice into evil and eventual disaster…”

      What exactly is a “bellwether”? It is the leading sheep of the flock which leads the rest of the sheep to their destruction.

      Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary also includes this general definition – “one that takes the lead or the initiative; an indicator of trends.”

      There have been many leaders who were placed in positions of authority who had such power and influence over a people. But how devastating it was when they were raised up by Satan, for they swiftly led the people away from God’s purpose for their lives and into every imaginable evil.

      These Satanically-inspired “bellwethers” do not necessarily have to be preachers or ministers. They simply are “false,” “deceitful,” “unruly,” “vain,” and “ungodly” leaders placed across our paths in some way, shape, or form(Satan’s Bellwether)

      2 Peter 2:19 – “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption…”

  6. I have only read a little here, so I don’t know how people think about different issues. However, I believe that the Catholic church and Rick Santorum have valid points concerning the contraceptive issue.

    One very strong point in their favor is the constitutional protection of INDIVIDUAL rights to practice religion. This means that the minority religious practices should not be bulldozed by blanket laws. Of course, where a religion would bring harm to others, the law would overrule it. But a lot of leeway has been granted to religions usually because of the desire to not overstep the individual rights that are protected.

    The second point in favor of the Catholic church’s position, from a Christian point of view, is that a number of forms of birth control are actually abortifacients. The morning after pill, and the IUD are two such, and there may be more. Not only are our tax dollars helping to fund abortions, but now whole groups of people are being forced to more directly provide what they find to be anti-God.

    The third issue that we should find offensive is that the administration backed off a little, they said, and then said that the Catholic church would not provide the free contraception; rather, the insurance companies would have to provide it. FREE. Can any administration tell a business that they must provide a service or product for free? I find this so audacious and offensive to what we once thought were free people!

    How can Christians support what the administration is doing regarding birth control? It is not their right constitutionally, and, more importantly, it is wrong morally to make abortion easy and free. We are progressing even farther down the horrible road of Roe vs. Wade. God cannot be pleased if we side with any such condoning of killing our children.

    • My belief is contraception is a private issue. It has no place in politics.

    • Your arguments here would carry weight if they were based on specific Bible scriptures and not just on church teaching. If the government of the United States becomes captive to the specific teaching of any one church, it will no longer be a democracy, but a theocracy and theocracies have a track record of being brutal and oppressive. Jesus Himself teaches us to render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. He never anywhere teaches us that we or the church are to meddle in the affairs of government in any way other than to pray for those in authority over us. Vengeance is mine saith the Lord. That means that it is God’s business to establish morality, not that of the church.

  7. I wrote about God’s hatred of murder (abortion). This isn’t just a church teaching.

    Jesus did not prohibit political activity when He said, “Render to Caesar, that which is Caesar’s….” He was just establishing that it is right to give proper respect to civil authority through paying taxes and other means. As far as I remember, I haven’t come across anything in the NT that says we should or shouldn’t be involved in politics, but only that we should keep the Lord in His proper place as God and Lord, and follow His leading.

    As long as we have the opportunity to vote, I believe that we should do so, and try to vote for those who will most nearly uphold godly standards. God showed His pleasure when Israel chose to follow after a righteous king, and His displeasure when they went after the profane. I believe He would have us at least vote as righteously as we can. “To anyone who knows the good that he should do, but doesn’t do it, to him it is sin.”

    • But J Nakkas, the subject of the article wasn’t concerning abortion, but Santorum’s statements concerning “…the controversy between religious freedom and contraception” (see OP)

      Rick Santorum reiterated his belief that states should have the right to outlaw contraception during an interview with ABC News: “The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.”

      Santorum has long opposed the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling “that invalidated a Connecticut law banning contraception” and has also pledged to completely defund federal funding for contraception if elected president. As he told CaffeinatedThoughts.com editor Shane Vander Hart in October, “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” (link)

      As i wrote previously, to use contraceptives or NOT to use them is a private matter. Not a matter for the government to decide. If one is a Catholic and believes in no birth control, fine. But it should never be a political issue. And what the Catholic church teaches on the matter is not the “law of the land” for others outside the Catholic church, for the teachings in the new testament (new covenant) do not specifically address the issue.

      Your conscience tells you its sin? Ok. But: “…why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?” (1 Corin. 10)

      As long as we have the opportunity to vote, I believe that we should do so, and try to vote for those who will most nearly uphold godly standards. God showed His pleasure when Israel chose to follow after a righteous king, and His displeasure when they went after the profane.

      We are not Israel of old, and here in the United States we don’t elect Kings but elect temporary leaders every 4 years who (hopefully) attempt to peacefully lead a nation made up of people from different religious backgrounds, or who practice no religion at all. If you believe it is your obligation to vote…vote. But respect that many Christians believe differently.

      We Christians, already have a King! A True Spiritual leader! We don’t need another one.

  8. I want to respond before going off to work, or else it will be another day or two before I can get back to this. My response will just be to the points you raised, pjmiller.

    -Santorum’s point that the states have a right to outlaw contraceptives. He is right. States’ rights. Any power not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved for the states. Of course, this is why there are some states where “medical marijuana” is legal, and where it is illegal to marry your first cousin.

    You say,
    “As i wrote previously, to use contraceptives or NOT to use them is a private matter. Not a matter for the government to decide. If one is a Catholic and believes in no birth control, fine. But it should never be a political issue.”
    This administration has specifically made this an issue. They have determined that all groups should provide contraception in their employees’ health care. This is an active, EXPANDED requirement, placed on every business, including religious groups, by the ruling party. Rick Santorum and others are saying that this is intrusion of the feds into what should not be legislated by them. If anything, his (and my) position are more in line with the thought that contraceptives are a private matter.

    I believe that the contraceptives that destroy a fertilized egg that has begun forming into a baby are wrong. Why did the government make any declaration about this at all? They are demanding that contraceptives be free and part of every insurance policy offered. If companies and groups want to offer such contraception, they had liberty before to do so. It was not mandated by the feds. But now, that liberty has been squashed, and every group must offer what some consider an offense to God. In this, I am not moving to curtail your liberty, but the federal government has encroached even more upon mine (as one standing for religious liberty).

    That we don’t have a king is obvious. Of course I was referring to “kings” in the sense of ruling authorities.

    This move by the administration to force provision of contraception of all sorts to all employees is encroachment of their philosophies upon those who before had some liberty in this matter. The administration should stay out of this.

    I did not show lack of respect toward anyone who does not vote. Supposedly we are discussing things here, and I was expressing my thoughts that choosing to not vote has ramifications, whether one wants to believe it or not. We are still free to choose to not vote, though we are less free to practice our religion because of this administration’s heavy-handed decree on contraceptives.

    • You say,
      “As i wrote previously, to use contraceptives or NOT to use them is a private matter. Not a matter for the government to decide. If one is a Catholic and believes in no birth control, fine. But it should never be a political issue.”

      Rick Santorum and others are saying that this is intrusion of the feds into what should not be legislated by them. If anything, his (and my) position are more in line with the thought that contraceptives are a private matter.

      Glad to read you also consider it a private matter, but many of today’s politicians (on the extreme right, including Santorum) do not. To refer to this as an attack on religious freedom, which they have, is simply not true.

      They have determined that all groups should provide contraception in their employees’ health care.

      But no one (or administration) is forcing, by law, any woman to use contraceptives, only giving them the opportunity to obtain them, at no cost, if it is their decision to use them: if for birth control or medical reasons. What certain people ‘appear’ to want to take away is actually the freedom for one to decide for themselves.

      The law permits me to obtain alcohol, purchase guns, or any number of things, which i decided (personally) not to do. It was my decision.

      Why did the government make any declaration about this at all? They are demanding that contraceptives be free and part of every insurance policy offered. If companies and groups want to offer such contraception, they had liberty before to do so. It was not mandated by the feds. But now, that liberty has been squashed, and every group must offer what some consider an offense to God.

      Why? Because its part of the Health Care program (which i 100% supported and still do).

      You mention groups considering this an offense to God. When these employers are not paying for it, how are they offending God? What they are actually doing, under this provision, is leaving it up to the individual to seek God, pray, and with a clear conscience, make a decision for themselves. And that friend, seems to be the problem: they want to take that freedom away from their employees.

      In this, I am not moving to curtail your liberty, but the federal government has encroached even more upon mine (as one standing for religious liberty).

      I find that to be a strange statement for i don’t understand how your (or my) religious liberty to serve God, pray, evangelize, etc. is encroached upon by allowing woman the liberty to decide on birth control, WITH the opportunity to obtain it at no cost to them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Rooted and Grounded In Christ

Teaching Sound Doctrine & Glorifying Christ

Music from Broken Chords

Down in the human heart, crush'd by the tempter, Feelings lie buried that grace can restore; Touched by a loving heart, wakened by kindness Chords that were broken will vibrate once more. From the Hymn "Rescue the Perishing" by Fanny J. Crosby

Lead Me

"Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it fully."

I Was a Teenage Dispensationalist

It's the end (of the end) of the world as we know it...

Disrupting Culture

A blog by Dr. Jonathan Welton

%d bloggers like this: