Political Animal
Blog
In an earlier post today, I quoted Steve Waldman’s report from Beliefnet on Rick Santorum’s 2008 remarks about Barack Obama and those un-Christian “liberal Christians.” But in the comment thread, “nitpicker” came up with a link to an actual transcript of Santorum’s answers to questions posed by sponsors of the conference (the Oxford Centre for Religion & Public Life) that Santorum and Steve were attending. Here’s the Q&A related to Obama:
QUESTION: What would your opinion be of this stance: Obama has been very honest in the past about his faith. He said he was attracted to the church because of its non-literal approach to the Bible. Now that’s coming through Wright. His speech before the United Church of Christ, he very much embraced the basic theological approach of the United Church of Christ. So you could say that he is a very sincere, liberal Christian, with a non-literal approach to Scripture, who would argue that, voicing Niebuhr, that the primary application of the Gospel is in issues of economic, social justice. And that he accepts his church’s teaching on sexuality, in the same way that you accept your church’s teachings on sexuality. So in that case he is a sincere liberal Christian. Would you buy that?
ANSWER: I could buy that. Again, yes, it goes to the larger question of whether I could buy that overall from that point of view. But is 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.
But as they say on the late-night commercials: Wait, there’s more!
The sponsors also asked Santorum about John McCain. Keep in mind this was in August 2008, when McCain was already the certain nominee of Santorum’s party.
QUESTION: You haven’t spoken so much about McCain’s religious condition. Could you shed some light on McCain’s religious views?
ANSWER: Yeah. I don’t think he has any - I think, historically, he’s been hostile to it. He’s been hostile to me on many occasions because he sees me - saw me - as injecting faith into the debate. He’s very uncomfortable with that. This is not a guy, in my opinion, who is a spiritual guy, is deeply connected to - again - what’s between him and God is between him and God. It’s not me. I’m just telling you from my experience, this is not a man who is comfortable in his own skin with faith….
That’s fine. But what I look at is his behavior toward me and others who were people of faith, who were obviously motivated by faith to do things, and his antipathy toward me and groups who were faith-motivated groups. He would often rail against Christian-conservative groups when he was in the Senate, particularly in the last - not the last two years, but the four years prior to that.
So I don’t think he’s gonna have a whole lot of appeal. And he did very poorly among Christian conservatives. The real question is whether Obama will motivate those people to come out and vote against him. Not whether McCain - McCain cannot and will not - McCain will not personally. He may have surrogates go out and drum up the evangelical vote. He will not do that. He cannot do that. That’s just not who he is. And he won’t do it.
Interesting, eh? It’s reasonably clear where Santorum’s basic political loyalities reside. And it’s with his ideological comrades in the Christian Right, not with the GOP.
Thanks again to “nitpicker” for this glimpse into Santorum’s thinking.
Facebook
Twitter
Mitch on February 21, 2012 5:44 PM:
The one good thing about Santorum's theocratic insanity is that it would doom him in the General.
The bad thing is that a sizable minority of Americans are fanatics who buy into every word. And, historically speaking, large numbers of zealots often cause great suffering.
Santorum sounds like he's proping himself up as an infallable spokesman for the Will of God. What HE says is right. No other views matter. In fact, all other views are Sinful.
I wonder how the Vatican feels about that?
Daniel Buck on February 21, 2012 5:53 PM:
"To take what is plainly written," as Santorum puts it, is laughably ignorant of the linguistic origins -- Armaic, Hebrew, and Greek -- of the Bible. Maybe Santorum believes Jesus Christ spoke English.
Stranger yet, a Roman-Catholic Bible literalist. Whatever is the world coming to?
Dan
Rich on February 21, 2012 5:58 PM:
If one looks at the platforms of all these guys, the distinction between Christian Right and GOP is pretty non-existent. The social issues crew still has tremendous influence.
Santorum's rejection of "Liberal Christianity" is not unlike the rejection of his own Catholicism by which used to be typical of everyone from High Church Episcopalians to Pentacostals. The idea that he and others like him reject the sincere faith of a great many people is an issue that has gotten far less attention. The Left may be less moved by an us vs. them posture but this is a situation where it's unlikely to be unmoved. And you don't need Jim Wallis to be involved to make that point.
Cybrguy on February 21, 2012 5:59 PM:
I am quite certain that after the election, if not before, Santorum will just fade into obscurity. Not being in govt anymore, after the election he really will have no platform to speak from. At this time he is limiting his followers to only the most extreme, as the mainline religious are getting a good look at where he really stands. He will end up being marginalized just like the John Birch Society and the KKK.
Red Telephone on February 21, 2012 6:02 PM:
The Republican Supremacist Party is founded upon fascist Christian extremism. Every single thread of intelligence in their xenophobic and monotheistic subculture is twisted and perverted by static interpretations derived from abridged bibles and filtered through a polarized and paranoid world view.
They have no other way of seeing their world other than in terms of subversion, blind obedience and terror. Their brand of leadership is pallid, anemic, uninspired, dishonest, deceitful, one dimensional, outdated, inappropriate, irrelevant, dangerous, precipitous and deplorable.
What they want to do is destroy our homeland and any form of government that doesn’t make Jesus worship compulsory and lack thereof punishable by death.
These diseased and pathetic scoundrels need to realize that their day of reckoning is upon them and that they have no one to blame except for themselves. They only say no to everything because they have no inspiration to conjure up even one single original thought on their own.
Daniel Kim on February 21, 2012 6:03 PM:
James 5:1-6 (NIV)
"1 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you."
This is pretty plainly written.
Measure for Measure on February 21, 2012 6:04 PM:
Santorum actively lobbied for a brokered convention in 2008, in order to defeat McCain. One Democratic activist heard him speak loudly into his cell phone during a 2008 train ride:
http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3426
So yes, he has a history of nonfealty to the GOP.
rrk1 on February 21, 2012 6:17 PM:
To the extent that one can call the ramblings of a religious bigot 'thinking', I would agree that it's instructive to understand what his positions are. What sanctimonious Santorum has in common with hypocrite Gingrich is a monumental and pervasive narcissism that often leads to a monstrous certainty. The kind of certainty that gave us the Holocaust, and genocides wherever it rears its terrible head.
Clearly Santorum does not accept an ecumenical accommodation with those who don't see things his way religiously. Since he sees everything in a religious context he obviously wants to be a dictator. The man is incredibly dangerous, and it's hardly any wonder why he lost his Senate seat by such a large margin. Just as he would lose the general by a large margin for the same reason.
And, historically speaking, large numbers of zealots often cause great suffering.
I would say that even small numbers of zealots are capable of doing enormous damage and causing great suffering. We have large number of zealots who believe they are entitled - or called by god - to impose their beliefs and values on the rest of us. Santorum is their natural leader, and regardless of how the nomination and election turn out, I'm afraid he will lead that crowd from now on.
June on February 21, 2012 6:17 PM:
This is all very interesting, and a very effective distraction on Santorum's part. It takes the attention away from the fact that his fingerprints are all over the worst policies of the Bush era - policies which bequeathed Pres. Obama a fine mess to sort out.
It also distracts from the fact that even as Santorum the Righteous vows he will repeal Affordable Care Act regulations and throw millions off their health insurance, he fails to offer any viable alternatives besides "God help you."
SYSPROG on February 21, 2012 6:21 PM:
Santorum is a fraud. It's the word of man based on belief and myths that were handed down through history. Here is a brief synopsis.
All of the earliest attempts at translating the Bible into English were fragmented. For example, Bishop Aldhelm of Sherbourne translated the Psalms into Old English around 709. Venerable Bede, a monk at Jarrow, translated a portion of the Gospel of John. By 900 AD all of the Gospels and most of the Old Testament had been translated into Old English.
· John Wycliffe (1380) - John Wycliffe was the first to plan a complete English translation of the Bible from Latin. His translation was based on the Latin Vulgate. He completed the New Testament prior to his death, and his friends completed the work after his death.
· PRINTING PRESS INVENTED - 1450
· William Tyndale ( 1525-1530) - Driven from England by persecution, William Tyndale, shared Wycliffe's desire to produce a Bible that the common English-speaking person could understand. Using the Latin Vulgate and other ancient sources, Tyndale was able to translate the New Testament and Pentateuch before he was martyred.
· Miles Coverdale (1535) - A friend of Tyndale's, Coverdale was able to publish a complete Bible. It is generally believed Coverdale used Tyndale's work in producing his New Testament. This Bible was done to honor King Henry the VIII.
· Matthews Bible (1537) - Despite the name, it is widely accepted that a friend of Tyndale, John Rogus, did most of the work on this Bible. Based largely on Tyndale's previous work, it also contains evidences of Coverdale's work as well. This might well be considered an updated Tyndale Bible.
· The Great Bible (1539) - This Bible takes its name from its great physical size. Based on the Tyndale, Coverdale, and Matthews Bibles, it was used mainly in churches. Often chained to a reading desk in a church, people would come to listen as a minister read from the Great Bible.
· The Geneva Bible (1560) - Produced in Geneva by scholars who had fled persecution in England under Queen Mary, this Bible was based not only on the Great Bible, but also on the other English translations of that day. Though very scholarly, it was a popular Bible because of its small size.
· The Bishops Bible (1568) - This was a revision of the Great Bible and Geneva Bible done under the direction of the Archbishop of Canterbury during the reign of Elizabeth.
· Douay-Rheims Bible (1582-1610) - The New Testament was published in Rheims in 1582 and the Old Testament in Douay in 1610. A revision of the Latin Vulgate, this has become the generally accepted English Version for the Roman Catholic Church.
· King James Version, KJV (1611) - The most popular translation ever produced, this Bible was done during the reign and at the urging of King James the I of England. 47 scholars, divided into 6 groups, worked on this translation. Based largely on the Bishop's Bible, many Hebrew and Greek texts were also studied as well as all the other available English translations, to insure the best results. By choosing men of many different theological and educational backgrounds, it was hoped individual prejudices of the translators could be minimized. Printed in a handy size and in clear type, the KJV was suppose to please clergy and congregation alike. Despite initial resistance, the KJV became and still is the largest selling translation of the Bible.
· Revised Version (1881-1884) - Designed to be a revision of the KJV, the Revised Version, had the advantage of being able to access some of the ancient manuscripts. Although this revision was sponsored by the Church of England, many American scholars were invited to participate.
I think they 'questioners' are the true believers.
Mimikatz on February 21, 2012 6:56 PM:
Plainly written? Where in the New Testament does it say that sex is only for procreation and birth control is not allowed? Besides, Paul is the usual font for teachings (It is better to marry than burn), not Jesus. Jesus was the social gospel, give everything you have to the poor and follow me, don't lay up your treasures on earth but in heaven, throwing the money changers out of the temple. Paul was the guy obsessed with sin and sex, not Jesus. And of course much of Santorum's theology, like that of many evangelicals, relies on the Old Testament more than the new. It is all about sin and redemption, not loving your neighbor and helping the least among us.
Josef K on February 21, 2012 7:16 PM:
I, for one, am absolutely f*cking horrified.
And *this* is what's considered an acceptable Presidential nominee?
Mark on February 21, 2012 7:49 PM:
"The most malicious kind of hatred is that which is built upon a theological foundation."- George Sarton
"It is sometimes claimed that religious intolerance is the fruit of conviction.
If one be absolutely certain that one's faith is right and all
others wrong, it 'seems criminal to permit one's neighbor obvious
error and perdition.
I am tempted to think, however, that religious fanaticism often is the result not of conviction but rather of doubt and insecurity." -GEORGE SARTON
My two favorite quotes about religious fanatics
TCinLA on February 21, 2012 8:04 PM:
"to take what is plainly written" By who? For what? What passes for the "Bible" has been plagiarized, rewritten for political and social purposes by non-religious people, is open to interpretation....
Take Genesis. The word of "God"?? Hardly! Prior to the Babylonian Captivity, Judaism was not a written religion. Since the leaders of the religion didn't know how long the captivity would last and were worried that a spoken-word-only religion might die, they set about putting things down. And they copied the Chaldean creation myth that was available to them and labeled it "Genesis." The Pentateuch was created by men not God, for the purpose of creating a religion that would keep their little ethnic group together.
How about the story of the Exodus? How come it is that no one researching the history of the reign of Ramses II - a reign that was very well-documented on nearly every other event, in material known to modern researchers - has found any mention at all, no matter how obscure about the "plagues" sent to torment Pharoah? I mean, the death of the first-born male in every family would be the kind of social calamity that someone might mention somewhere, right??? The destruction of Pharoah and his army by a flood of the Red Sea? Kind of important, yes?
What about versions of the Bible? The "Catholic" Bible differs substantially from the King James Bible all the fundies believe in, since there are different doctrines. The purpose of the King James Bible was to promote the Divine Right of Kings and the State Church of England. How "spiritual" is that?
Little Ricky (needs to be in a) Sanatorium is an idiot.
Rudy Gonzales on February 21, 2012 10:23 PM:
There are soldiers in theater, fighting foreign enemies and proudly honoring our freedoms daily. No one asked them if they were gay, black, rich, poor or believed in God. These soldiers have fought, still fight and will fight forever to protect the freedoms we so proudly enjoy. Today we have one candidate standing alone stroking the fires that will burn down the basis of our separation of Church and State. It is up to the people, the voting populous, to change the course this one candidate wants to take America. It is up to the people, the voting populous, to effect change for the people, not the elite top 1%. It is up to the people, the voting populous, to effect change and equalize the tax distribution through his/her representative and Senator. We can't cut and slash our way into growth, just like less taxes will grow jobs. The business community has seen the confrontational aspect of the 112th Congress ans has and will throw their backing to the president. And rightly so! This president is smarter than most people think. There doesn't seem like there's a bunch of enthusiasm for the current four headless horsemen. It may be a scary primary for whomever wins.
hamletta on February 21, 2012 10:26 PM:
Since when do Catholics hold to literal interpretation of Scripture? The Bible is a compilation of different forms of literature: history, parable, poetry. Each form has to be approached on its own terms.
One of the best analogies I've heard was from a scholar in my faith (Lutheran): It's similar to a newspaper, which contains police-blotter, just-the-facts-ma'am stories; opinion pieces; editorial cartoons. Each of these can contain truth, but you approach them all differently.
You're not being asked to believe that Jonah survived in the belly of a whale. Jonah is a character, a caricature of a self-righteous schmuck. Y'know, like Rick Santorum.
nitpicker on February 21, 2012 11:49 PM:
De nada, Ed.
By the way, the very worst thing Santorum said? That Muslims are right to see us as "hedonistic." He hates us for our freedom.
Frank Wilhoit on February 22, 2012 6:43 AM:
Christianity? Christianity...?
OH, you mean sadism!