Rick Santorum Takes Mo, Mn, And Co!

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1328736404' post='2383906']
[img]http://images.tzaam.com/full/1cf.jpg[/img]

The choice is easy
[/quote]
you, sir, have won the internet, and possibly the election.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1328783213' post='2384165']
you, sir, have won the internet, and possibly the election.
[/quote]
I absolutely agree with this post.

[kujo]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1328732610' post='2383854']
I don't agree.

Santorum vs. Obama would provide a clear choice, for both sides.

It would be a line in the sand.

With Romney, what is the difference between him and Obama? Both are big government, both have put government policy above religion, Obama beats Romeny.

Gingrich is the smartest man in the room, but he too has big government problems as well as baggage.

Santorum is smart, conservative and we haven't had one of those since Reagan.

All Rick needs is campaign money and he will bring the battle to Obama.
[/quote]

Rick Santorum is just another neo-conservative, a new breed of "Republicrat" who believes in the same principle of "big government intervention" as every Democrat in the last 120 years. Sadly, other than Ron Paul, that's pretty much the entirety of the GOP these days, and so I don't think you can really differentiate between Santorum and Romney in the way you did.

The one dramatic distinction is with the various social issues that Rick is super conservative about. But even there--he supports some of the several different ways the federal government can "intervene" in "protecting traditional marriage." If you think that the federal government ought to be involved in that matter, I suggest you pick up a Constitution and read the 10th Amendment,

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1328817360' post='2384331']The one dramatic distinction is with the various social issues that Rick is super conservative about. But even there--he supports some of the several different ways the federal government can "intervene" in "protecting traditional marriage." If you think that the federal government ought to be involved in that matter, I suggest you pick up a Constitution and read the 10th Amendment,
[/quote]kujo, I think you'll find that many people on here are more interested in the social conservatism than political conservatism. I don't think that Ron Paul scores nearly so many points there.

[kujo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1328817456' post='2384334']
kujo, I think you'll find that many people on here are more interested in the social conservatism than political conservatism. I don't think that Ron Paul scores nearly so many points there.
[/quote]

I've been around here quite some time and know [i]exactly [/i]what people are interested in. Never the less, I feel it necessary to point out the contradiction of clamouring for a "limited government" while supporting an amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman. For starters, marriage is a state issue. Secondly, the whole thing is bogus anyway.

IMO, of course...

[qfnol31]

I think marriage makes sense as a national issue. If two men get married in New York and move to Texas, should their union be recognized in the second state? It really does deal with interstate issues, almost as much as money itself does.

Also, it's not really expanding government to have the amendment. Government was expanded when it started getting into the definition question, not when it works to resolve it. Marriage and its definition is a religious question before it's a governmental question and government overstepped its bounds when trying to define it.

[4588686]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1328818343' post='2384340']
I think marriage makes sense as a national issue. If two men get married in New York and move to Texas, should their union be recognized in the second state? It really does deal with interstate issues, almost as much as money itself does.

Also, it's not really expanding government to have the amendment. Government was expanded when it started getting into the definition question, not when it works to resolve it. Marriage and its definition is a religious question before it's a governmental question and government overstepped its bounds when trying to define it.
[/quote]

The institution of marriage exists across religious boundaries and even in the absence of religion. Marriage as a sacramental institution is a strictly religious affair but the state makes no pretense to having a role in the sacramental side of things. The government is not in any way overstepping its bounds in defining what marriage is in relation to the state. Which is what would be occurring. You are overstepping your bounds in saying that Catholic approved marriages are the only sorts that ought to be recognized by the state, which is not an ecclesiastical body.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1328818717' post='2384343']
The institution of marriage exists across religious boundaries and even in the absence of religion. Marriage as a sacramental institution is a strictly religious affair but the state makes no pretense to having a role in the sacramental side of things. The government is not in any way overstepping its bounds in defining what marriage is in relation to the state. Which is what would be occurring. You are overstepping your bounds in saying that Catholic approved marriages are the only sorts that ought to be recognized by the state, which is not an ecclesiastical body.
[/quote]I definitely wouldn't say that Catholic marriages are the only marriages. I believe in Catholic marriages, Orthodox marriages, Protestant marriages, Jewish marriages, natural marriages, etc.

[quote name='Genesis 2:23-25']Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.[/quote]Sacramental marriage explains natural marriage in ways that aren't always apparent.

I realize this is a somewhat radical claim, but at the same time, can you say why marriage makes sense within a state?

Edited February 9, 2012 by qfnol31

[4588686]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1328819129' post='2384349']
I definitely wouldn't say that Catholic marriages are the only marriages. I believe in Catholic marriages, Orthodox marriages, Protestant marriages, Jewish marriages, natural marriages, etc.[/QUOTE]

Right. And most of those groups have conflicting understandings of what marriage is. The Protestants don't define it in sacramental terms. There is no single definition of marriage.

[QUOTE]Sacramental marriage explains natural marriage in ways that aren't always apparent.

I realize this is a somewhat radical claim, but at the same time, can you say why marriage makes sense within a state?
[/quote]

It promotes stability and helps against poverty. But more importantly, people tend to order themselves into monogamous relationships and raise families. The state has to have some legal structure surrounding that pattern for things like insurance law, child custody law, et cetera.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1328819722' post='2384365']
Right. And most of those groups have conflicting understandings of what marriage is. The Protestants don't define it in sacramental terms. There is no single definition of marriage.[/quote]This is true and has been problematic for a while. In the end I think that the different understandings of marriage arise from a desire to please people rather than God. I also understand Protestants don't look at marriage as sacramental. Martin Luther had a lot to say about that particular point.

[quote]It promotes stability and helps against poverty. But more importantly, people tend to order themselves into monogamous relationships and raise families. The state has to have some legal structure surrounding that pattern for things like insurance law, child custody law, et cetera.
[/quote]You're right that the state needs a good understanding of marriage, but the benefits you've listed here aren't really definitions of marriage so much as reasons why it's good to have. Why use the term marriage for these benefits? What distinguishes a marriage from a civil union within the political sphere?

[kujo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1328818717' post='2384343']
The institution of marriage exists across religious boundaries and even in the absence of religion. Marriage as a sacramental institution is a strictly religious affair but the state makes no pretense to having a role in the sacramental side of things. The government is not in any way overstepping its bounds in defining what marriage is in relation to the state. Which is what would be occurring. You are overstepping your bounds in saying that Catholic approved marriages are the only sorts that ought to be recognized by the state, which is not an ecclesiastical body.
[/quote]

Excellent post.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1328719866' post='2383709']
Just saw this: [url="http://www.fplaction.org/rick-santorums-cruel-conservatism/"]Rick Santorum's Cruel Conservatism[/url]
[/quote]
[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1328720405' post='2383710']
As sad as I was to read this, alot of this is common among those who identify more with the right than with the left. (shoot...it's the MO here as well) "Social justice" to them is normally hippy jargon for socialism or some other non 'merican malody. They identify with what they agree with (say abortion), and disagree/ignore where they don't. On the flip side of the same coin, those who lean more to the left do the same exact thing, just in reverse polarity. Both claim a more moral highground in what they accept and reject.

It would be nice to have a catholic candidate who took seriously ALL the Church has to say. Methinks it would confuse everyone.
[/quote]
Sigh . . .

That linked blog was from a highly-partisan "Faith in Public Life Action Fund," a liberal Democrat self-described "progressive faith organization" which supports Obama and liberal democrat policies (such as Obama-care). If you doubt me, just browse the rest of the blog site.
The writers on it are about as much honest and unbiased promoters of Catholic truth as is Nancy Pelosi.

It's rather depressing that such standard-issue left-wing political drivel seems to be taken seriously as "Catholic" "thought" on phatmass.

Yes, in this case, the "social justice" talk is indeed nothing more than lefty jargon to support a left-wing political agenda.

Catholics are certainly not bound to support Obamacare or other such unsustainable tax-and-spend manifestations of the welfare state, nor are we obligated to support every government program to forcibly re-distribute wealth, as the FPL Action fund people insinuate.

Conservatives such as myself oppose such programs because we believe them unsustainable and destructive in the long run, as well as unjust and unconstitutional violations of essential freedom in the case of initiatives such as "Obama-care." We believe the public good is best served by the free choices of persons in a free society, rather than by government dictating what everyone must do with their own money.

It's not out of some "cruel" desire to see the poor suffer, as the leftist partisan hacks on that blog like to caricature it.


Neither are we Catholics obligated to coddle those who come into this country illegally, nor support every expensive statist boondoggle proposed by politicians in the name of "saving the planet."


[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1328727496' post='2383774']
Overall a pretty sound commentary, though it was hard for me to take the writer uber-seriously when he referred to the

because, man, that is laughable. Don't think libertarian means what that author thinks it means. I'd say my shoe is more authentically libertarian than the broad fiscal platform of the Republicans.

That said, Kolbe gets my internet high five for today.
[/quote]
I agree whole-heartedly about the blog decrying the "libertarian economics" of the Republican Party being laughable.

However, I'm not sure why you found the rest of it such "sound commentary," other than perhaps the section on "torture and war." The bulk of the blog post was simply the usual liberal Democrat calls for more statism, and a defense of the welfare state and liberal Democrat policy - as was the entire FPL blog site - and is close to being the polar opposite of what I'd expect a Ron Paul supporting libertarian such as yourself to believe in.

I realize you're not likely a fan of Sen. Santorum, but condemning him along with other Republicans for being too statist, while simultaneously praising commentary which condemns them for not being statist enough is simply nonsensical and schizoid.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1328817360' post='2384331']
Rick Santorum is just another neo-conservative, a new breed of "Republicrat" who believes in the same principle of "big government intervention" as every Democrat in the last 120 years. Sadly, other than Ron Paul, that's pretty much the entirety of the GOP these days, and so I don't think you can really differentiate between Santorum and Romney in the way you did.

The one dramatic distinction is with the various social issues that Rick is super conservative about. But even there--he supports some of the several different ways the federal government can "intervene" in "protecting traditional marriage." If you think that the federal government ought to be involved in that matter, I suggest you pick up a Constitution and read the 10th Amendment,
[/quote]
The problem is that federal courts are[i] already [/i]interfering with the decisions made at the state level, as federal courts have overruled the decisions made by the people of the state of California on this matter. If the Supreme Court rules in agreement with that decision, the blow to states rights and constitutional limitations on federal government power would be disastrous.

It's the "gay rights" crowd and activist federal courts which have struck the first blow in this battle, and a constitutional marriage amendment would be the only way to fight back.

If we must have the federal government dictating state marriage laws, I'd rather it be done lawfully by the process of constitutional amendment, rather than unlawfully by justices legislating from the bench.

I'd be in favor of a Human Life Amendment for similar reasons.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1328830719' post='2384531']
Sigh . . .

That linked blog was from a highly-partisan "Faith in Public Life Action Fund," a liberal Democrat self-described "progressive faith organization" which supports Obama and liberal democrat policies (such as Obama-care). If you doubt me, just browse the rest of the blog site.
The writers on it are about as much honest and unbiased promoters of Catholic truth as is Nancy Pelosi.

It's rather depressing that such standard-issue left-wing political drivel seems to be taken seriously as "Catholic" "thought" on phatmass.

Yes, in this case, the "social justice" talk is indeed nothing more than lefty jargon to support a left-wing political agenda.

Catholics are certainly not bound to support Obamacare or other such unsustainable tax-and-spend manifestations of the welfare state, nor are we obligated to support every government program to forcibly re-distribute wealth, as the FPL Action fund people insinuate.

Conservatives such as myself oppose such programs because we believe them unsustainable and destructive in the long run, as well as unjust and unconstitutional violations of essential freedom in the case of initiatives such as "Obama-care." We believe the public good is best served by the free choices of persons in a free society, rather than by government dictating what everyone must do with their own money.

It's not out of some "cruel" desire to see the poor suffer, as the leftist partisan hacks on that blog like to caricature it.


Neither are we Catholics obligated to coddle those who come into this country illegally, nor support every expensive statist boondoggle proposed by politicians in the name of "saving the planet."



I agree whole-heartedly about the blog decrying the "libertarian economics" of the Republican Party being laughable.

However, I'm not sure why you found the rest of it such "sound commentary," other than perhaps the section on "torture and war." The bulk of the blog post was simply the usual liberal Democrat calls for more statism, and a defense of the welfare state and liberal Democrat policy - as was the entire FPL blog site - and is close to being the polar opposite of what I'd expect a Ron Paul supporting libertarian such as yourself to believe in.

I realize you're not likely a fan of Sen. Santorum, but condemning him along with other Republicans for being too statist, while simultaneously praising commentary which condemns them for not being statist enough is simply nonsensical and schizoid.
[/quote]

I get what you're saying, but my opinion wasn't really based on the statist leanings of the author, since, for the most part, 95% of political commentary is made by people who are implicitly statists. That's kind of the default state, and I understand that. My statement about it being sound commentary was based more on the author's pointing out that many of Santorum's positions in terms of social justice being generally in opposition to the spirit of the position of the Church. I'm no proponent of the "charity at gunpoint" strategy of governments; that doesn't mean that I am opposed to charity.

A hard look at social issues, including those involving provision of health care, assistance with the impoverished, etc. is a fundamental benchmark by which the conscience of a society can be evaluated. My personal stance is that those issues are better addressed in the absence of governmental coercion or involvement, on a community level, in a cooperative manner that is agreed upon by the citizens involved. My point in regards to the article was more in relation to the fact that I think the author's overall assessment of Sen. Santorum (i.e., his social politics seem to generally oppose the position the Church has taken on many of those issues) was a sound assessment. My own POV on the matter is that I think that, while probably well-intentioned, it seems that Santorum's positions seem to default to the public perception of what "conservative" poltiics entails. Ron Paul wins no popularity points with his non-interventionist perspective, but it's probably the most authentically Christian perspective of all the candidates. Someone who would enthusiastically endorse the use of torture, while claiming to espouse Catholic values, is someone who has eschewed his religion in favour of his platform. This is what I was agreeing with in this article.

Was the author's intent to paint this as a "Santorum is a greedy bastich who wants to rob your chirrens, but Obamacare will solve all your ills" type scenario? Probably. But his liberalist slant doesn't make his observations on Sen. Santorum's positions less valid. I don't look to agree politically with most commentators, as finding a libertarian commentator in most venues is a pretty rare occurrence. I generally throw out most of what I read, as people are auto-biased in favour of statism because it's what they know. I sift through and find what's worth considering and sort of toss out the rest. I suppose I should've clarified my post a bit more, but I find I read a lot on auto-pilot like that. LOL

[XIX]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1328836508' post='2384569']
Someone who would enthusiastically endorse the use of torture, while claiming to espouse Catholic values, is someone who has eschewed his religion in favour of his platform. This is what I was agreeing with in this article.
[/quote]
Is Santorum pro-torture, or is he pro-waterboarding under the pretense that waterboarding is not torture?

Because it seems clear to be that waterboarding is torture, but it's still a crucial semantic difference. I don't think it's safe to [i]presuppose [/i]that waterboarding is torture. It should be argued, instead.