We have known all along that Rick Santorum is a flaming, full-blown creationist. But until today we didn’t realize just how extreme he truly is. Our previous posts about this Republican presidential hopeful are: Rick Santorum: Full-Blown Creationist, and most recently Santorum, ClimateGate, & Creationism: Axis of Idiocy.
Our information today is found at the website of Sunshine State News of Tallahassee, Florida. They say that: “We are the only news organization in Florida with an editorial board that believes free-market, less-government solutions will prove successful in addressing the problems challenging our state.” Their Santorum article is titled Rick Santorum Takes a Break From Iowa and New Hampshire to Speak in Sarasota. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
While Santorum has formed an exploratory committee and has not officially entered the race, he took another step toward running on Monday as he continued to add to his staff in both Iowa and New Hampshire.
[…]
Trailing in the polls, with almost every poll at the national and state level showing him in low single digits, Santorum is looking to break through in Iowa and New Hampshire and he is making a major effort in both states. Last week, Santorum campaigned in Iowa — his 14th appearance to the Hawkeye State. Earlier in the month, he made his 16th appearance in New Hampshire.
The article has a lot of information about Santorum, but this is what got our attention:
Santorum has played up his Catholicism as he prepares to enter the Republican contest. Marking the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association where he said that his Catholicism would not shape his policies in the White House, Santorum spoke in Houston in September to challenge JFK’s point. Santorum said that his faith and beliefs can — and should — guide his public actions.
Think about that. John Kennedy assured the country, 50 years ago, that his religion wouldn’t influence his policies. That’s the way it’s supposed to be in America. Santorum, however, has flipped it around. He says his religious views will guide his policies. It couldn’t be more explicit.
Santorum is a full-blown, out-of-the-closet theocrat — and he’s proud of it. He’s running his campaign on it. If he were elected, that’s how he intends to govern. The Constitution means nothing to Santorum, notwithstanding Article VI thereof, which says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
If you had any doubts before, this should dispel them. Out of office, Santorum is probably harmless. As President, however, he would govern like an unrestrained maniac.
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
Coincidentally, recently there was this from an aide to John McCain:
The reference was to Santorum’s recent remarks on torture, but I think it’s broadly applicable to him.
If that is the case, he might want to take a second look at the Catholic Church’s position on torture. I am pretty darn sure, he is going a different direction on that topic.
If a President’s religious faith teaches him that murder is wrong, should he govern as though it isn’t?
Our current President claims that his faith informs his actions–why does SC not accuse him of being a theocrat? Is it because you don’t believe him?
Gabriel Hanna, who is obviously having one of those days, asks:
In domestic affairs, a President should follow the law. In foreign policy he should act in the country’s interests — legally, of course. In all things, he should act in accordance with the Constitution. Okay?
On this issue I’ll be charitable and say that “faith and beliefs can — and should — guide his public actions” is ambiguous enough to be meaningless. One interpretation, not necessarily his intended one, is that he will use the moral guide that is part of his, and many other religions, to guide his actions.
On other issues, however, particularly anti-evolution activism, this guy’s pandering puts Newt to shame. In one article from the era of the “Santorum Amendment” he hinted that he might not agree with what the DI peddles, but nevertheless defended their right to peddle it. As a devout Catholic, he is undoubtedly aware that Pope John Paul II characterized the evidence for evolution as “convergence, neither sought nor fabicated,” and never publicly challenged that. Given the hysteria of anti-evolution-activists over the 1996 JPII statement on evolution, Santorum’s silence adds to the suspicion that he accepts it prviately. Nevertheless, by getting in bed with the DI, his attempts to undermine science education top those of any US senator or congressman in decades. Which is just what one expects from a theocrat with a radical agenda to “save the world.”
I’m embarassed to say that Santorum (aka ‘Sanctorum’ for his intensely sanctimonious arrogance) is from my state. He was so extreme that even conservative Pennsylvanians tossed him out of office. He has unabashedly, routinely stated that his faith is the only way, and that it WILL direct him in all he does, including public office. Not surprisingly, he is determined to remove women’s rights. The guy is scary, though one hopes he’s scary enough to the right wing to be unelectable.
@ Gabriel – your comment seems to assume that government has no morality unless religion is suffused throughout it. There is no conflict between either religious or secular condemnation of murder. The reason our laws are secular is to avoid bias, not to permit lawlessness.
I’m no knee-jerk Obamacrat, but President Santorum? Holy smoke and mirrors! And you say he already admitted his “faith and beliefs” should “guide” his public actions?
All together now:
Flintstones, meet the Flintstones, / They’re the modern Stone Age family / From the town of Bedrock, / They’re a page right out of historeeee…
@magpie61
Since you mentioned Flintstones, if I had to choose between:
(1) A candidate who admits belief of a Flintstones-like history of life, but agrees that only mainstream scientists have earned the right to have their material taught in science class.
(2) A candidate who is evasive about his/her beliefs regarding the history of life, but implies that ~99.9% of scientists who work in relevant fields are either wrong about the evidence, or insists that the other ~0.1% deserves “equal time” in science class.
I’d choose (1) without hesitation.
@Caralesia: your comment seems to assume that government has no morality unless religion is suffused throughout it.
No it doesn’t. I’ve neither said nor implied any such thing.
What I’m saying is, everyone who HAS faith would say that they count their faith to guide their actions. Just ask Presidents Carter, Clinton, and Obama, who have said as much numerous times.
If you want to call people theocrats you need more than that.
@Gabrial Hanna: “If you want to call people theocrats you need more than that.”
Thanks. That’s my point (albeit the wordy version) above. Though with Santorum’s anti-science activism we might just have the “more than that.” In fact I’m not sure that even that necessarily makes him a theocrat, but it’s enough to lose my vote, which he did in the ’06 Republican primary. I wrote in Judge Jones.
@FrankJ:Though with Santorum’s anti-science activism we might just have the “more than that.”
No friend of science, certainly, but there is nothing he has said or done to indicate that he intends to impose his religion by force on the rest of us should he become President.
It may be tiresome that I say it so often, but a creationist school board member is more of a threat to science than any President, and creationism is at best a hypothetical loss of liberty. Real threats to our liberties, like the War on Drugs, or coercive laws named after dead white girls, from the national government and state governments increase every day.
Gabriel Hanna: What I’m saying is, everyone who HAS faith would say that they count their faith to guide their actions. Just ask Presidents Carter, Clinton, and Obama, who have said as much numerous times.
If you want to call people theocrats you need more than that.
Santorum attempted to change public education in science to reflect his personal religious beliefs about the formation of the earth. I.e. he tried to put creationism in the classroom. This sets him apart from Carter, Clinton, Obama, heck even the Bush’s or Reagan.
So I agree with SC on this; I think the theocrat label in this case is reasonable. There is a world of difference between an elected official who lets their faith inform their decisions and one who uses their office to promote their faith.
I don’t think it’s asking too much for a 21st century president to be up-to-date with 19th century science, do you? We are talking about the single most powerful person in the world, aren’t we? One with worldwide influence and a 24/7 platform, whose finger is theoretically on “the button”, to employ a dated but not irrelevant Cold War expression. Whether or not he’s in a position to do as much damage as a school board is at least debatable, is it not? Is it wise or prudent to dismiss the concern entirely?
As I was saying…
…Let’s ride with the family down the street / Through the courtesy of Fred’s two feet! / (Alternate: Someday, maybe Fred will win the fight / Then that cat will stay out for the night!) / When you’re with the Flintstones, you’ll have a yabba-dabba-doo time / A dabba-doo time / You’ll have a gay old time!
(Oops, forgot to sign in.)
….Wilmaaaaaaaaaaa!
Gabriel Hanna: “No friend of science, certainly, but there is nothing he has said or done to indicate that he intends to impose his religion by force on the rest of us should he become President.”
And even if he tried, he’s a Catholic, which means that fundamentlist Protestants would object as strongly as those of us who do want religious freedom.