Welcome to the cafeteria Mr. Santorum.

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

Sunshine christians cherrypick the Bible like jihadists cherrypick the Koranand the world is worse for it.

#1 yuck wash that shit-slime off your hands before going near the cafeteria.

Santorum is just playing to the Bible-thumping, inbred base.

Enjoyable read - along with the comments posted. Raises good points. I like the person commenting on Pope Benedict XVI statement that "denying the truth of evolution is an 'absurdity'" and the Churches statement on AGW.

Perhaps Rick should take Mitt's advice and make it relevant by performing self-excommunication?

1. Pope John Paul II was against the war against Iraq. Santorum ignored that Catholic teaching.

2.The Conference of Catholic Bishops requires that health care be provided to all Americans. Rick Santorum's opposition to universal health care is a betrayal of his Catholic faith.

3. The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty for criminals in almost every case. Santorum supports them.

4. The US Conference of Bishops has urged that the federal minimum wage be increased, for the working poor. Santorum in the Senate repeatedly voted against the minimum wage.

5. The bishops want welfare for all needy families. Santorum is a critic of welfare.

6. The US bishops say that the basic rights of workers must be respected the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions. Santorum, who used to be supportive of unions in the 1990s, has turned against them.

7. Catholic bishops demand the withdrawal of Israel from Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. Rick Santorum denies that there are any Palestinians.

8. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops ripped into Arizona’s law on treatment of immigrants. Santorum attacks ‘anchor babies’ or the provision of any services to children of illegal immigrants born and brought up in the US.

9. The Bishops have urged that illegal immigrants not be treated as criminals.

10. The US Conference of Bishops has denounced, as has the Pope, the Bush idea of preventive war.

These well intentioned Catholic Bishop's that have dedicated their lives to helping poor people are automatic targets of the CIA's School of the Americas. They are annihilated in the name of slavery. Slavery of foriegners to US Corporations, all the while our politicians pretend to love freedom and democracy.

Last time I looked the bishops did not run the country. They have an outlook that at some times makes no sense. Take Obamacare, where they were promised they would not have to provide contraception and abortion if they supported the bill. As usual, when you sleep with snakes you are bound to get bit and they did. Do we need to help the poor, yes do we need to punish everybody else to get there, no.

As far as immigration they do have a rosy outlook, illegal immigrants have broken our laws. Without the rule of law there is only chaos, the bishops do not understand this concept and think the answer is simple, let them in. Anyone that has been to the border states knows this is not the case.

The bishops want the minimum wage increased but all that does is shed more jobs for the entry level employee and htat has been proven. Actually better than half the states already have minimum wages that exceed the federal level. The only reason for the minimum wage is so union workers can get a raise everytime it is raised.

Bottom line is there are some issues of the day that the bishops do not understand. Contraception is directly opposite the churches teaching, but it is a personal decision. Abortion is a definite no no and rightfully so, if you have ever seen an abortion the fetus is trying to get away from the intrusion of the instrument. Actually there have been numerous studies that have shown a direct connection between breast cancer and women that have had abortions or miscarriages. Apparently the Nancy Pelosi's and abortion whacko's that keep screaming woman's health have ignored these findings because it does not fit their agenda.

Santorum has been a pretty conservative legislator, has he voted or supported things he did not like, of course. But then every legislator has had to do that to get what they need or want for their constituents. Either party none of them are perfect, I guess you have to vote for the candidate that you believe is the lesser evil because nobody can be everything to everybody.

Last time I looked the bishops did not run the country.

Fortunately for the rest of us.

Religious government is fundamentally incompatible with liberty and democracy.

#8 | Posted by dr_icepick

That was the understatement of the year so far...

10 political stances, and not one of them appears in Scripture.

There is also another five:

1 Sola scriptura
2 Sola fide
3 Sola gratia
4 Solus Christus
5 Soli Deo gloria

BTW, these are stances, not teachings.

Last time I looked the bishops did not run the country.

They sure are trying awfully hard.

If they focused 1/100th of the energy they are expending trying to get Obama to deny birth control to Americans on the pedophiles in their ranks they could be trusted with children.

Last time I looked the bishops did not run the country.

Tell them that.

Bishops do not decide Catholic teachings. That can only come from the Vatican.

#14 and that means that OBAMA chose to show favoritism to a foreign donor more than to the people of the USA or even his own constituants. Even the CATHOLIC PEOPLE don't want what the POOP got.

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

Sunshine christians cherrypick the Bible like jihadists cherrypick the Koranand the world is worse for it.

#2 | Posted by northguy3 at 2012-02-12 10:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are you so unable to distinguish between Catholic teachings and Biblical commands?

Stupid article.

which one of you leftists needs something like this written to learn that catholics are far from perfect and do not follow all the teaching of the church?

face it, you're just pissing in your pants that obama is gonna pander to this group sometimes.

BFD. get over it.

what, do you expect the catholic church to toss out every rule you know don't get followed?

here is a pop quiz for catholics.......everyone who has ever missed mass, for no good reason, since you were 16, raise your hand.

oh, that would be everyone? hell, we might as well just toss the rule about attending mass out as well.

but wait....this isn't about this, is it?

catholics are far from perfect

No one is perfect.

In 1960 the GOP was bitching about the POTUS taking orders from the Vatican.

Now they are bitching about the POTUS not taking orders from the Vatican.

My how conservatives have failed.

"BTW, these are stances, not teachings."

Stances based on teachings. There is no way to reconcile the death penalty, harsh treatment of immigrants/poor, the Iraq War, etc. with Christ's teachings.

Santorum is a the worst kind of fraud in that he seems to not realize that he is one.

#19 | Posted by Sully at 2012-02-13 09:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

The death penalty is reconcilable. Treating illegal immigrants according to the law founded by the government is reconcilable. The government has the power to decide if there is a war regardless of what individuals say.

Should Santorum support the war based on Christ's teachings... no. Are Christians perfect? No. If you (plural) have read any of the scripture you (plural) would realize that those following Christ are to strive to be like Christ with the realization that they will not be perfect until the next life.

It is called sanctification. It is a process, not instantaneous.

#18 | Posted by 726 at 2012-02-13 09:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't believe this is as much about the president taking orders from the Vatican as much as it is about the president not crossing the line in regard to his promises when he was trying to pass Health care reform and not crossing the line between separation of church and state.

"and not crossing the line between separation of church and state."

Too rich. The Church wanted a separation when they formed a corporation to protect the church from financial liability. Then the Church wanted to be a church when they had to follow the same law as other corporations.

-Then the Church wanted to be a church when they had to follow the same law as other corporations.

exactly. It's amazing what voting for someone can buy.

"Should Santorum support the war based on Christ's teachings... no. Are Christians perfect? No. If you (plural) have read any of the scripture you (plural) would realize that those following Christ are to strive to be like Christ with the realization that they will not be perfect until the next life.

It is called sanctification. It is a process, not instantaneous."

The problem with that, of course, is that Santorum is obsessed with picking on gays, who Jesus never mentioned and in general Jesus didn't pick on people over their sins. But Santorum supports wars and other acts of violence that Jesus clearly spoke against. If you're striving to be like Jesus, being against the Iraq War was a no-brainer. So he's not even trying to do what you're saying. He's not striving to be anything like Christ. He's making up his own rules as he goes along and hiding behidn Christ as he does it. In the old days, he'd of been considered a blasphemer.

I had Catholic clergy in my family - people who really sacrificed alot (vows of poverty, endless volunteer work) to try to live according to Christ's teachings. They weren't perfect either but they didn't act anything like Santorum.

"in general Jesus didn't pick on people over their sins. But Santorum supports wars and other acts of violence that Jesus clearly spoke against. "

Please elaborate. Be specific.

Please cite specific Scripture.

This is not a trick post.

Post what Santorum said and post (from Scripture) how it differs from the teachings of Jesus.

"Please cite specific Scripture."

Mark 12:31 vs. everything Santorum says about gays, for one example.

#'s 22, 23, 24... spot on.

Jesus never said a word about gays or abortion, threw the moneylenders out of the Temple, castigated the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of his day, taught peace, not war, and also taught that all men are your brothers.

Also never said word one about not using representational government (not that there were any at the time, although there later became Christian monarchies) as just another tool to implement the Golden Rule or to reflect the values he taught. Rwingers have made that up.

"Please elaborate. Be specific."

There is not one example of Christ talking about gays.

"Please cite specific Scripture.

This is not a trick post."

Then why are you asking for a reference to something that never happened?

"Post what Santorum said and post (from Scripture) how it differs from the teachings of Jesus."

Christ didn't obsess over gays. This is a Santorum thing. I don't know why he tries to connect his obsession to Christianity.

#24 | Posted by Sully at 2012-02-13 10:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

Is he obsessed with picking on gays? I haven't really obsessed myself with Santorum to even notice.

You and Corky do have to be honest that Christ did make clear that sins needed to be turned from. If homosexuality is a sin just like any other sin, it needs to be turned from just like any other sin.

In following Christ there is a huge line drawn between committing a certain sin occasionally while actively trying to turn from it and committing a certain sin intentionally and knowingly without any effort to turn from it.

What Christ asks is that all individuals take a 180 degree turn from every one of their sins. Sure they may be turning slower or faster given the specific sin, but he still expects them to be turning.

I would also say that all those individuals backing the fact that Santorum should have been against the Iraq war should also take a look at themselves and make sure they were against the military action taken in Libya all the same. (this is not for you, more for Corky and the other democrats that have selective military action protest syndrome).

I don't claim that Santorum follows that he believes perfectly or even at all. That is up to him. Of course it is also up to each of us to ask, more importantly, whether we follow what WE believe.

Of course it is also up to each of us to ask, more importantly, whether we follow what WE believe.

More important is whether your beliefs have any basis in reality. It's a question that the bible-thumpers deflect, ignore, or answer falsely at every opportunity.

Whenever these preachy morons rear their worthless heads, you can count on them conveniently ignoring the fact that their asinine claims lack evidence.

Your vacuous sanctimony aside, Exp, the Christian teaching is that sin is between you and your God not you and Rick Santorum or you and EXP.

As far as "selective military action protest syndrome" goes, Rwingers are traditionally not at all selective and usually have never met an opportunity for war (profit) that they could pass up.

That said, there is no strict admonition to a country not to protect itself or it's friends or fellow human beings (See: Neighbors) when it reasonably can, from aggression, from without or within, as this country has done in World Wars or in places like Bosnia or Libya.

Some discernment and judgement about which wars are worth fighting for what reasons is required, not some rwing ideological imperative of empire.

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2012-02-13 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

Such a strange reaction. I mentioned Jesus being pretty clear on turning from sin (which you should agree with)

I mentioned that we should be more concerned with our own lives and whether we personally follow was we individually believe (which you should agree with)

And the fact that war is never a desirable thing and if we are following Christ's teaching we should not be very supportive (as it is a dire situation all the time) of it regardless of the circumstances (which you should agree with).

All things you should be able to agree with and here you are having an issue with it... why? Who knows.

Are you also trying to say that we should never let people know (out of love and concern) about the situation they might be in? Gee that doesn't sound right. Even Christ made it clear that you let people know where they are, where they could be, and let them decide.

You seem to be pretty worried about Rick Santorum... maybe it is time you take your own advice and let Rick's issues be between Rick and God rather than Rick and Corky? No?

(which you should agree with)

Telling people what they should agree with is par for the Rwing course... not only some lame authoritarian ego trip, but absurd on it's face.

-we should never let people know (out of love and concern) about the situation they might be in?

This is pseudo-Christiantalk for.. "You dumb bastards are all going to Hell!"

All you need is some make-up and tears, EXP, and you'll be the Second Coming of Tammy Faye Baker.

"You and Corky do have to be honest that Christ did make clear that sins needed to be turned from. If homosexuality is a sin just like any other sin, it needs to be turned from just like any other sin."

Old Testament God didn't like buggery if the Bible is accurate. Christ never mentioned it. If that makes it a sin, then its a sin I guess.

Certainly, Christ's position on violence is much easier to figure out and Santorum doesn't share it and doesn't find that a problem either. You can't reaonably argue that he's unaware of Christ's take on violence.

I just find out it odd that someone who talks about Christianity so much could be so bad at it.

More importantly, for me at least, is that Santorum has proven that he will ignore his Christian beliefs when taking certain political stances.

Therefore, he can't ever say that any of his political stances are mandated by his faith. Because he very clearly chooses to ignore what his religion tells him in certain cases.

You can't use religion as a justification for your actions half the time and ignore it the other half when it doesn't suit you. And I think that's the point in bringing up Santorum's anti-Christian stances on certain issues.

Sin means "missing the mark" as in missing a target with an arrow shot.

And according to Christianity, everyone while in the flesh will sin one way or another until they aren't in the flesh any longer.

But Christianity also teaches that it is between a person and their God to work out their salvation, not between a person and some looney toon politician, TV evangelist, or pseudo-Christian blogger.

(which you should agree with)

Telling people what they should agree with is par for the Rwing course... not only some lame authoritarian ego trip, but absurd on it's face.

-we should never let people know (out of love and concern) about the situation they might be in?

This is pseudo-Christiantalk for.. "You dumb bastards are all going to Hell!"

All you need is some make-up and tears, EXP, and you'll be the Second Coming of Tammy Faye Baker.

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2012-02-13 11:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

Interesting. Don't you and the democrats keeping telling everyone what they should agree with? That they are evil if they don't support x,y,and z?

Very strange to see you disavowing the very things you do... at the same time taking issue with hypocrites.

You have a strange way of behaving in comparison to the things you say.

I guess when Jesus told people the good news... and they asked... "why is that good news"... he just stayed quiet and didn't tell them what the good news was compared to the bad news.

Thanks for that comical exchange Corky. Again, you say it is between the person and God and then you go and make it between the person and Corky.

#35 | Posted by Sully at 2012-02-13 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

It is important to bring these things up. You didn't claim it wasn't. Corky is the one that claims ones sins, "missing the mark", mistakes, are between God and that person. And then goes and drags all those mistakes out making it between the person and Corky.

Rick may not do a very good job of living according to what he claims to believe. Corky may not either. Of course as opposed to Corky I am not in much of a place to insist that someone is a "pseudo-Christian".

They may be, but I can't know that for sure.

Amazing exhibition of ignorance about Catholicism on this thread!
The Bishops stand on most of these things is purposefully left open-ended for the faithful to fulfill as they see fit. Thus the social welfare opinions are not an endorsement of a welfare state run by the federal government but a general teaching government at some level must do something for the poor.
And being anti ILLEGAL immigration does not at all violate their teaching the immigrant must be treated fairly.
I do agree with the author on one thing, however. Santorum and most of the neocons are dead wrong about preemptive military action and the situation of displaced Palestinians. But these are political observations and rarely in history has the Church demanded such things be observed or else. Just witness how long the Church condemned the crossbow and atomic weapons to no avail.
I guess now we'll see a thread on how Ed Koch could not keep kosher....nit picking.

The Bishops stand on most of these things is purposefully left open-ended for the faithful to fulfill as they see fit.

I'm not an expert on Catholics, since I left the church as a kid, but that sounds like a crock to me. I never heard a rule put forward by a priest or a Sunday school teacher that was "open ended." Nor did my mother in Catholic school. She's still angry at the nuns who taught her and was thrilled to escape them for public school in her early teens.

-Corky is the one that claims ones sins, "missing the mark", mistakes, are between God and that person.

That would be the Apostle Paul who made that claim, actually.

-sounds like a crock to me

Definite crock. See: 98 percent of Catholic women who use contraceptives in defiance of church edicts, not because the Bishops stand is open ended.

-Corky is the one that claims ones sins, "missing the mark", mistakes, are between God and that person.

That would be the Apostle Paul who made that claim, actually.

#41 | Posted by Corky at 2012-02-13 12:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not in this thread. It was you in this thread and yet your actions conflict with your claim. Imagine that.

- your actions conflict with your claim

You're delusional.

But I'm not taking back the Tammy Faye Baker crack, no matter how butthurt you are.

But I'm not taking back the Tammy Faye Baker crack, no matter how butthurt you are.

#43 | Posted by Corky at 2012-02-13 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm delusional? Interesting. I see you on here telling people what they should agree with, letting people know about their "missing the mark", telling them how they should really behave, and proclaiming that people are not real Christians.

You want to say you don't? You've done it right here in this thread alone.

The article has some merits but is also misleading. Catholic rules/teachings/stances/
opinions/guidelines have different levels of importance, so you CANNOT equate them all. Like we laws in society - some broken laws could be felonies, misdeameanors, or just a parking ticket, while there are other moral or common sense laws we all follow that aren't even on the books.

Yes Catholics are encouraged study issues, think for themselves, and follow their conscience, even it goes against a guideline or whatever. So you can be for legal immigration, and against illegal immigration, and not be a bad Catholic. But other more basic beliefs like the right to life, I do not think can be justly argued.

The biggest thing to me for Santorum is the death penalty, I do not think Catholics can condone that.

Some of the things the bishops came up with, are more like a list of thing to strive for. They do not account for the fact there is only a limited amount of money to around, rendering it impossible to do them all.

I'm repeating Paul. You, not so much.

- telling people what they should agree with, letting people know about their "missing the mark", telling them how they should really behave

Nowhere do I tell people what they should agree with or how they should behave, just the opposite.... that was you doing the telling, sweetie.

Post what Santorum said and post (from Scripture) how it differs from the teachings of Jesus.

#25 | Posted by vernon

Since God was all knowing and was completely aware that in the 21st century we would be having this serious debate...perhaps you could post where the scriptures discuss abortion and contraception?

please cite specific verses. I am particularly interested in what Jesus had to say about abortions as he was the Son of God AND God (neat trick) and He came to Earth to tell us His wishes on this and other important matters regarding the Meaning of Life and the Universe and Everything.

Thank you

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2012-02-13 02:11 PM

ROTFLMAO... Of course not Corky. Who here has seen you post the RW'ers are stupid for voting against their own intersts, or only vote repub because of some delusional dream they will become rich?

JJD - just an observation, but you write long stuff and it's kind of boring. My advice is to write shorter things, and make them either funny or abusive. Good luck.

Context, OC. It's a concept you seem unfamiliar with, but we were talking about what was said on this thread regarding things biblical.

Which doesn't involve hookers (usually) or cheating home buyers, so really not your expertise.

There are many reasons not to support Santorum. Foremost among them is that he is of Italian descent. His religion and his adherence to the Bible are actually quite admirable, and if he does get the nomination his belief in Jesus may be enough to overcome my reluctance to vote for an Italian.

No citation necessary.

"Context, OC. It's a concept you seem unfamiliar with, but we were talking about what was said on this thread regarding things biblical."

OK context? Here you go champ. Just because you chopped up Ex's retort and pretended he was speaking only of religion or this thread, only makes you a liar and a sinner...

"Interesting. Don't you and the democrats keeping telling everyone what they should agree with? That they are evil if they don't support x,y,and z?"

"Which doesn't involve hookers (usually) or cheating home buyers, so really not your expertise."

Sorry if a poor bastard like you can't get a hooker at any price, and or you are stuck in a shitty mortgage and can't qualify for today's historic rates. Don't blame the rules of the game, blame the game being way above you...

-his belief in Jesus may be enough to overcome my reluctance to vote for an Italian.

lol

Almost as funny as the OC continuously showing off his 3rd grade edumacation.

Corky. You obviously are a very stupid man. Are you friends with Doc Stupid and the Italian Scallion?

No citation necessary.

"Almost as funny as the OC continuously showing off his 3rd grade edumacation."

Which has what to do with another of your comprehension challenges? Exp was speaking in general, and you lied through your 11 yellow teeth he was referring to something biblical.

I know you long forgot how to be a man, but man up with whatever is left...

Please forgive me for laughing at your joke, Bradford.

I know first time occurances can be unsettling.

No tools required.

CorkyMontagueIV

-Exp was speaking in general,

No wonder your eyes are brown.... full of shit up to there.

-Exp was speaking in general,

No wonder your eyes are brown.... full of shit up to there.

#59 | Posted by Corky at 2012-02-13 02:54 PM

Would it help your tired, old eyes to see it for the third time? Or are you still going to cry and mess up that make-up?

---Interesting. Don't you and the democrats keeping telling everyone what they should agree with? That they are evil if they don't support x,y,and z?

Very strange to see you disavowing the very things you do... at the same time taking issue with hypocrites.---
#37 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-02-13 11:24 AM

If I need a translator, Obtuse Clown Boy, I'll get one with at least minimal reading comprehension skills.

You aren't qualified.

If I need a translator, Obtuse Clown Boy, I'll get one with at least minimal reading comprehension skills.

You aren't qualified.
#61 | Posted by Corky at 2012-02-13 03:05 PM

So a fourth time is necessary? OK, only makes you look older and stupider...

---Interesting. Don't you and the democrats keeping telling everyone what they should agree with? That they are evil if they don't support x,y,and z?

Very strange to see you disavowing the very things you do... at the same time taking issue with hypocrites.---
#37 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-02-13 11:24 AM

Nowhere do I tell people what they should agree with or how they should behave, just the opposite....

That would be the Apostle Paul who made that claim, actually.

#41 | POSTED BY CORKY

Hmm it seems in your zeal to attack Mr. Santorum you have shown the exact same hypocritical thinking that you profess to abhor. Namely choosing certain teachings to bash your ideological foe while ignoring other teachings of that same person when they don't fit your world view. Pauls teaching on homosexuality comes to mind.

=Pauls teaching on homosexuality comes to mind.

The term in the GR used by Paul in his day popularly referred to temple prostitutes.

Put that critical thinking in your abhorrent world view and puff on it.

#64 | POSTED #64 | POSTED BY CORKY

Unfortunately for you I wasn't speaking of Paul's teaching in 1st Corinthians chapter 10. If I was you would be correct and not as much of a hypocrite. I'm speaking of Paul's teaching in Romans chapter 1 which has nothing to do with temple prositutes. You may not agree with his teachings that's fine but, its highly hypocritical to attack someone for doing the exact samething you're doing.

you can count on them conveniently ignoring the fact that their asinine claims lack evidence.

#30 | Posted by Dr_Iceprick at 2012-02-13 10:46 AM | Reply | Flag

"If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear"
--Matthew 11:15

And then there are those who ignore all the evidence because it does not comport with their asinine beliefs.

No one person and no group is right on every issue. I think that the Catholic Church is wrong about birth control and also about state "charity."

#66 | Posted by vermin at 2012-02-13 09:53 PM | Reply | Flag: cites well-known forgery as 'evidence'

Lie some more Vermin, I need another laugh.
Jesus never existed.
There exists exactly zero contemporary record of any of the events 'chronicled' in the forgeries known as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
They don't even agree with each other.

I almost forgot; The pope is an idiot in a funny hat.

= its highly hypocritical to attack someone for doing the exact samething you're doing.

'Twere that the case, it would be hypocritical, but as it is not, it is, apparently, only over your head.

You aren't even correct on Rom 1.

"Romans And Shrine Prostitution

Romans and shrine prostitution is precisely what Paul addressed in Romans 1. The ancient custom of shrine prostitution, prevalent in first century Rome, forms the historical motif of the first chapter of Romans. Ancient shrine prostitution is the most historically accurate explanation of Pauls words in Romans chapter 1."

The Church wanted a separation when they formed a corporation to protect the church from financial liability. Then the Church wanted to be a church when they had to follow the same law as other corporations.

Precisely! Have religious based exceptions given to corporations ever been challenged in court? What was the outcome? If there are no legal precedents, this would be a great case to pursue in court.

"I'm not an expert on Catholics, since I left the church as a kid, but that sounds like a crock to me. I never heard a rule put forward by a priest or a Sunday school teacher that was "open ended." Nor did my mother in Catholic school."

If it is not set down ex cathedra, Rcade, it is not required belief. We can choose to follow the opinion of the bishops or politely dissent, e.g as in capital punishment, which has been roundly condemned in opinion but never as dogma.