Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
A Rick Santorum reader

A Rick Santorum reader

Last updated on: March 1, 2012 at 4:17 pm by Fred Clark

A Rick Santorum reader 2012-03-01T16:17:22-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

If this be a method, there’s madness in it.

I don’t get up early enough or stay up late enough to keep track of every strange, foolish, insultingly ludicrous, blasphemous or fantastical thing my former senator, Rick Santorum, has been saying lately. The Republican presidential candidate has produced such an astonishing string of wild accusations, pure hokum, and fringe lunacy that it all sort of bleeds together at this point. And he’s produced so much of it that no one blogger could hope to keep pace.

So here’s a collection of responses, rebuttals and refutations of some of Santorum’s recent statements, roughly arranged topically, from some of the smarter observers on the Web.

Rick Santorum’s Dutch death panels lie:

Frances Martel: “Dutch TV Anchor to Rachel Maddow: The Dutch Are Furious At Santorum Over Euthanasia Claim”

RTL News anchor Erik Mouthaan, ran through the list of claims Santorum made, in order: “totally not true,” “not true,” “not true and insulting,” “not true and funny,” and “would be cool, but no.”

Robert Mackey: “Dutch Puzzled by Santorum’s False Claim of Forced Euthanasia”

Dutch journalists found it easy to refute Mr. Santorum’s statistics, and made fun of his “fact-free” claim that euthanasia was forced on anyone, but they had no idea where he got the idea that the nation’s elderly wear “Do not euthanize me” bracelets.

Ms. Bundy, the embassy spokeswoman, told The Washington Post, “According to the Ministry of Health, ‘Do not euthanize me’ bracelets do not exist in the Netherlands.”

Mr. Santorum’s campaign did not respond to a request to explain who or what the candidate’s sources were.

Kevin Drum: “Rick Santorum Shining a Much-Needed Light On Movement Conservatism”

These myths simply never die, and the movement conservative machine has already produced dozens of defenses of Santorum’s statement. They want to believe in the secular annihilation of everything traditional and decent, so they’re GOING to believe whether it’s actually true or not.

Rick Santorum says college is for snobs and indoctrination:

James F. McGrath: “Sanctum Santorum”

Pandering to the religious has never been illegal. But the combination of religiosity and lack of education, which Santorum wants in voters if not in himself, is potentially volatile, precisely because it leaves people open to being persuaded by religious rhetoric, and to failing to realize when they are being manipulated and pandered to.

zunguzungu: “Santorum’s Gift”

This shot at Obama is not only that Obama is a false god and false father — though it is this — but also that he represents, as such, a permissive society’s too-modern sense of the parent and authority, in which the purpose of higher education is not to make you a better worker, but precisely to free the individual from social obligations, and in which parents enable their children to be led astray by the kind of self-gratification (and self-determination) that will lead them to hell. Too much freedom.

When liberation is the problem — and when a “permissive society” becomes a bad thing — indoctrination ceases to be the problem, and becomes the solution. The problem with Obama is that his is the wrong indoctrination: since state-run education takes the power to shape and educate away from parents, Santorum’s solution is for parents to take their power back, and this leads him to argue — quite distinctly — that it should be parents who (metaphorically) play God with their children: “I want to create jobs so people can remake their children into their image not his.” The idea of people making themselves in the image of their own dreams and desires is not — and cannot be — on the agenda.

William A. Galston’s 2005 review of Rick Santorum’s It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good.

In the end, Santorum does not have the courage of his convictions. The logic of his argument should lead him to conclude that parents are not free to raise and educate their children in ways that undermine universal moral truths and socially essential virtues. He shrinks from this conclusion, I suspect, because he understands that his fellow citizens would never accept it. Yet, his premises point straight toward the ultimate concentration of state power we call theocracy.

Stephanie Coontz: “Santorum’s stone-age view of women”

Taken with statements Santorum made in his 2005 book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, his opposition to contraception (as well as to abortion, even in the case of rape) seems part and parcel of a deep hostility toward efforts to empower women and enhance their status. He has shown nothing but contempt for what his book called the “radical” feminist “pitch” that “men and women be given an equal opportunity to make it to the top in the workplace.” So perhaps it’s not surprising that at the time of publication he did not list his wife as a co-author or contributor, although when asked last week about this and other comments on working mothers, he now says his wife wrote that part of the book.

… The Santorums’ apparent hostility to women’s educational and professional advancement is insulting and out of touch with today’s world. But it is also odd in light of their purported interest in the welfare of children. It turns out that the most powerful single influence on a child’s educational success is not the mother’s marital status but her own level of education and her educational aspirations for her children, according to education researcher W. Norton Grubb.

See also:

Steven Benen: “The ‘anti-science’ side of the political divide“
Blue Texan: “Rick Santorum Rejects Catholic Church Teaching on Evolution“
Brian Tashman: “Santorum Knocks Public Schools, but Sticks Taxpayers for Bill for Homeschooling“

Rick Santorum vs. The Environment:

Mark Silk: “Santorum’s anti-environmentalism“
Andy Alexis-Baker: “Creation Theology in the Book of Job“
Brian McLaren: “The President’s ‘Phony’ Theology“
David Edwards: “Santorum: Liberals ‘are the anti-science ones’“

Rick Santorum sickened by the First Amendment:

Mark Silk: “Santorum v. JFK”

But if, as Santorum suggests, you do go on and read the speech, you will discover that Kennedy never said that people of faith have no role in the public square or that faith is not allowed there. He did, however, articulate a number of positions that Santorum should be asked if he agrees with.

Sarah Posner: “Cues for Throwing Up”

This view is frequently thought of as emanating from evangelical organizations like WallBuilders or the classrooms at Liberty University. But Santorum had a Catholic mentor, if not for the precise physical reaction, for the overall contempt for Kennedy and for the Establishment Clause. …

… Two years ago, near the 50th anniversary of Kennedy’s speech, Archbishop Charles Chaput, then Archbishop of Denver and now Archbishop of Philadelphia, returned to Houston and gave his own speech at Houston Baptist University. There, Chaput accused Kennedy of giving a speech that “profoundly undermined the place not just of Catholics, but of all religious believers, in America’s public life and political conversation. Today, half a century later, we’re paying for the damage.”

Today, Santorum’s (and Chaput’s) reactions to their fellow Catholic’s view reflect a fundamental(ist) shift: evangelical activists do not want to hear that the White House will be free of religious influence; in fact, a White House free of religious influence (conservative religious influence, that is) is something to be reviled.

ABL @ Balloon Juice: “Rick Santorum’s Views on Church and State Make My Brain Vomit”

Kennedy did not say that “people of faith have no role in the public square,” nor did he say that “faith is not allowed in the public square.” Not even close. Kennedy said that all people and churches should be created equal. That’s it. It’s a simple concept, really — one that Republicans, the self-styled masters of the Constitution, should have grasped by now. Frankly, I can’t even begin to understand what Santorum’s Brain was thinking when it interpreted Kennedy’s speech as some sort of attack on faith and the First Amendment. It is nutbaggery most foul, and I simply do not get it.

Steve M.: “Santorum’s been attacking JFK for years”

[In 2002] Santorum told NCR that he regards George W. Bush as “the first Catholic president of the United States.”

Rick Santorum on Real, True [Republican] Christianity:

Kyle Mantyla: “Santorum: ‘You’re a Liberal Something, but You’re Not a Christian’”

During the Q&A following his speech, Santorum was repeatedly asked about Barack Obama’s Christian faith, which he asserted was simply “an avenue for power” for Obama while claiming there was a “conscious disconnection” between Obama’s proclamations of faith and his stances on public policy issues.

In fact, said Santorum, there really is no such thing as a “liberal Christian” at all and anyone who doesn’t share his right-wing views doesn’t really have any right to claim to be a Christian:

[I]s there such thing as a sincere liberal Christian, which says that we basically take this document and re-write it ourselves? Is that really Christian? That’s a bigger question for me. And the answer is, no, it’s not. I don’t think there is such a thing. To take what is plainly written and say that I don’t agree with that, therefore, I don’t have to pay attention to it, means you’re not what you say you are. You’re a liberal something, but you’re not a Christian. That’s sort of how I look at it.

When you go so far afield of that and take what is a salvation story and turn it into a liberation theology story, which is done in the Catholic world as well as in the evangelical world, you have abandoned Christendom, in my opinion. And you don’t have a right to claim it.

Rachel Tabachnick: “Santorum Not Source of ‘Phony Theology’ Idea, Origins in ‘Biblical Economics’ Partnership”

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum is not the original source of many of his quotes being replayed over and over on network news this week. And he’s not the only candidate referencing narratives from a “Biblical economics” and a “Dominionist” worldview. It is time for the American public to become educated about how these narratives have emerged — from a world in which big business, a few ultra-wealthy families, and the Religious Right are rewriting history and science, and interpreting the Bible as supporting laissez-faire capitalism.

Charlie Pierce: “Where the Church of Rick Santorum Came From”

That’s what produced Rick Santorum — a 20-year effort to develop Roman Catholics who could talk like Southern Baptists, bonded as both groups were now by their twisted views of human sexuality, and by their desire to re-establish control over what American women can do with their bodies. It is an alliance of powerful convenience. It has as much to do with religion as it has to do with agriculture.

Ed Kilgore: “Of ‘Phony Theology’”

Santorum’s dog-whistle is aimed not so much at people who ignorantly believe Obama is a secret Muslim, but at people who look at Episcopalians and Presbyterians and Methodists and Congregationalists (Obama’s own denominational background) and see infidels who don’t understand that “true” Christianity requires hard-core opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, or for that matter, environmentalism, feminism, and other departures from nineteenth century American mores.

Scott Lemieux: “Santorum’s Double Standard”

Perhaps the ultimate example of this was inadvertently demonstrated in a fawning New York Times Magazine profile of the Princeton “natural law” theorist Robert George. You will not be surprised to learn that for George, as for Santorum, “natural law” has political implications that always happen to map exactly on to reactionary Republican political consequences. Catholic teachings that might prove inconvenient to Republican policy preferences or require sacrifices of important Republican constituencies — on subjects such as poverty or the death penalty — can be safely ignored, but if you don’t favor embedding the church’s teachings on human sexuality into secular law this is unacceptable.

See also:

Steve Kornacki: “‘Phony theology’ and evangelical identity politics“
Alexa Seitz-Wald: “Santorum Suggests Obama Is a ‘Phony’ Christian“
David Edwards: “Santorum uses Hitler analogy to describe Obama“
RMJ @ Adventus: “Rick Santorum, Fundamentalist Protestant“
Igor Volsky: “Franklin Graham: Obama May Secretly Be a Muslim, Santorum and Gingrich Are Definitely Christian“
Andrew Jones: “Franklin Graham: ‘I cannot answer’ if Obama is Christian“
Mike Lux: “What Bible Is Santorum Reading?“
Alan Bean: “Santorum meant exactly what he said“
Frederick Clarkson: “The Religious Bigotry of Rick Santorum“
Charlie Pierce: “Theology for Dummies“

Uncategorized

Previous Post

February 27, 2012

Long enough to reach the ground

Next Post

February 28, 2012 My family's involvement with a criminal conspiracy

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What did God create on the first day?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Light Animals Water Plants