Santorum questions Obama's "phony" theology

Sometimes I  like respect people that are unafraid to stand up and tell you what they think, right or wrong. Many people can't always do that, whether it's because we'd like to keep our job or because we realize that maintaining a good relationship with a loved one is more important than sharing exactly what is on our mind.


There is a big difference between saying what you think or believe and insulting someone else's beliefs. There is also a contrast in stating that you believe that someone is wrong on an issue and saying that someone is a bad person. Unfortunately Rick Santorum seems to find it constitutionally impossible to make those distinctions. These are really important distinctions to make in a country where there are a multitude of beliefs about God, sexuality, reproduction and any other hot button issue you care to list.

"It's not about you,' Santorum declared."It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible -- a different theology."

"I can't help but think that those remarks are well over the line," Senior Obama Campaign Adviser Robert Gibbs said Sunday on "ABC This Week." "It's wrong. It's destructive."

LINK
This isn't just a dog whistle to those who are convinced that the President is an Alinskyite/Atheist/Muslim/Kenyan/Socialist/Communist/Ghetto Crackhead who hates America. (though it certainly appeals to that crowd)  It is also a tell that Santorum doesn't realize that he's running for President of the United States, not Grand Inquisitor. Those two jobs require different experiences and personalities. For President, I want to know that someone understands this BEFORE I hand him the keys to a massive national security apparatus and a military might unmatched by any other nation. But if I were hiring for Grand Inquisitor I would definitely call Santorum back for the second round of interviews. He certainly has the smug moral certitude needed.



I'm on a mission. A mission from God.

Santorum's attack also reveals a reductionist religious view. If I told you that there was a religious organization whose leaders regularly issued pointed broadsides against the death penalty, poverty, racism, free-market capitalism, war, and the increasing concentration of wealth, you might be surprised to learn that Santorum was a member. Evidently, as many people do, Santorum struggles with those teachings which he finds inconvenient and embraces those which he likes. The Roman Catholic Church is about more than opposition to abortion, gay marriage and contraception. Both Santorum and his detractors should remember that. The call to share and help the poor is just as important as the sexual proscriptions. It doesn't look like Santorum is heeding that call


Santorum also revealed that he was opposed to prenatal testing because he thinks it leads to abortion. 

"Yes, prenatal testing, amniocentesis does in fact result more often than not in abortion. That is a fact," Santorum said.

Okay. I almost never think that more knowledge is in and of itself a bad thing. That sort of arrogant know-nothing attitude is in direct opposition to what middle school Jesuit teachers taught me. If doctors discovered that an unborn child might face challenges, the new parents could use the time before birth to research those issues. They might consider adoption. They might alter their plans so that one parent provides full time home care. They might purchase more insurance. They might ask an extended family member to assist. One or both parents might change their career path to something more lucrative so that they could afford the additional medical costs. Everyone won't automatically seek abortion. And even if 99 out of 100 couples did, that doesn't mean that 100th couple doesn't have the right to prenatal testing.

The problem here is that increasingly, too many people across the political spectrum seem to believe that their opponents are not just wrong or misguided but bad and downright evil. Our system features divided government and limits on federal power precisely to ensure that you must work with detractors. So this doesn't bode well for Santorum's ability or interest to get things done if elected President.

I write this not as someone who thinks that partisanship is necessarily a bad thing or that some people on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me aren't truly malicious whack jobs. But if you assume that everyone with whom you disagree is evil or has "phony theology", purely as a pragmatic point you blind yourself as to their true motivations. You make mistakes, costly ones.

Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgment.
-Michael Corleone

QUESTIONS

1. There is no religious test for political office. Why is Santorum acting as if there is?
2. Were he to become the nominee, would Santorum's beliefs and attitude find support in a general election? Am I overreacting to a poor choice of words?
3. Could a President Santorum reach across the political divide?
4. Will attacks on President Obama's authenticity continue to be part of the political landscape?
5. Are you surprised at the sudden rash of social issues getting play this year?

Mitt Romney converts dead people

Do you know what happens when you die? Well Mitt Romney does. He's going to baptise you into Mormonism. Since you're dead you won't be able to object. And another soul is saved from the fires of hell. Praise the Lord!!! Someone should tell the Jehovah's Witnesses of this approach. It just saves a LOT of time and hurt feelings. Think about it. Rather than go door to door and have people pretend they're not home, slam the door in your face, set their dogs on you or openly mock your "kooky" beliefs, you just wait until AFTER they're dead and convert them anyway. No muss. No fuss. And no expenses for Watchtower pamphlets. All in all it's the perfect approach for the more introverted missionary, or perhaps a missionary who's just tired of trying to outrun the local Rottweiler.


Who could object to such a swell setup? I mean it's a win-win for everyone right? The church gets "converts" and you don't have to explain to the pious young person standing on your porch that no you aren't interested in coming to a Bible reading,  no you aren't giving him any money and no you don't want any literature. 

Well as it turns out there are quite a few people who object to this practice. One of them happens to be Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor, Nobel Peace Prize Winner and activist. And I think I would object as well. I mean imagine that you are minding your own business and then find out that Mormons are claiming that your deceased relatives converted to Mormonism and are presumably off ruling their own planets in Mormon heaven. Or consider that you're getting up there in age and discover that the Mormons have already calculated the likely time of your demise and are preparing to posthumously convert you to their faith. Wiesel wasn't pleased.

Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor who has devoted his life to combating intolerance, says Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney"should speak to his own church and say they should stop" performing posthumous proxy baptisms on Jews.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner spoke to The Huffington Post Tuesday soon after HuffPost reported that according to a formerly-Mormon researcher, Helen Radkey, some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had submitted Wiesel's name to a restricted genealogy website as "ready" for posthumous proxy baptism. Radkey found that the name of Wiesel had been submitted to the database for the deceased, from which a separate process for proxy baptism could be initiated. Radkey also said that the names of Wiesel's deceased father and maternal grandfather had been submitted to the site. 

A spokesman for the Mormon Church claimed that the names were simply entered into the database, and none were submitted for baptism, which he described as a separate process. The entry of a living person, he said, was a mistake, and he provided no explanation for the submission of Wiesel's father and maternal grandfather. By Monday the records for the names of Wiesel and his family had been changed to "not available," according to Radkey.

SOURCE

Ouch. Now far be it from me to question anyone's faith. I don't really care what you believe so much as how you behave. But at the very best it's sort of rude and at the worst downright arrogant and kind of creepy to run around claiming you've converted dead people. It's remarkable thoughtless and insensitive to their beliefs and more importantly to the beliefs and feelings of their living relatives. It's a sort of rewriting of history. I knew about this practice but I'm a little surprised that the Mormons are still doing it. Seems like that they would have gotten the message that their missionary outreach needs to be restricted to those who can still say yes or no: that is the living.

But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. After all back in 2007 When asked by Newsweek if he has done baptisms for the dead -- in which Mormons find the names of dead people of all faiths and baptize them, as an LDS spokesperson says, to "open the door" to the highest heaven-- he looked slightly startled and answered, "I have in my life, but I haven't recently". SOURCE

O-KAY. So perhaps the biggest question of the 21st century will not be whether or not America was ready to elect a black man with an African name to the White House but rather if America was ready to send a self-admitted necromancer to the White House. Maybe we'd better vote for Mitt while we have the chance. Otherwise he's just going to wait until we're dead and then claim we voted for him anyway. Yikes. He could be the first President seriously to go after the critical dead demographic. Kennedy made some overtures in 1960 but Romney could really win this under recognized voting bloc.

QUESTIONS

1) Is Wiesel right to be upset? Would you care if this happened to your deceased loved ones?

2) Is this a fair area of discussion or should the media have stayed out of it?

3) Will stories like this have any impact on the primary nomination (or general election should Romney be the nominee)