Catholic Santorum winning the South ... our next Prez ?

[ellipsis2]

Yes, and the assumption was made that that was what I was doing, and no one has even called me a liberal, which I am not.

Being someone who daily goes through numerous pages of world news regarding science, among other things, and listening to the candidates in their “debates.” I hear inconsistencies and attitudes that poo-pooh science. Science as such is treated, it seems to me, by Republicans in particular, and the more religious the more so, as if it is a matter of opinion.

Case in point the Exxon oil executive employed by the last Bush administration to censor scientific reports handed to Congress regarding climate change. Words and figures pointing to the urgency and of the degree and scale of change were expunged, The story was first broken by the Oakland tribune. The man in question returned to Exxon as a VP. Nothing at stake there. And I’m sorry I don’t take notes with dates and times of every speech I hear. But Santorum’s naivety about the scope of things that are effecting climate is pretty scary.

I’m not doing an annotated term paper here, just reporting what I gather from listening to these folks on the news, preferably foreign news which contains some analysis, comparisons, and insight. I learned to do that when I lived in Canada near the border and got both US and Canadian news. What passes for “news” in this Country is not only pathetic, it’s dangerous.

So that’s my say. We will vote and get exactly what we deserve. What I said about us sliding into a second world status can be easily verified for yourself. I’m done here. Good night, and good luck.

I’m guessing you are what is now becoming an extinct species…the moderate and well informed Republican. I remember when there were quite a few of you. They used to actually put the country’s best interest ahead of their personal best interest. I hope they come back.

 

[Roy5]

I’m not fond of any of the GOP candidates, nor of Obama. The only Republican of the four I might vote for is Romney, never the other three. Instead, I would have to vote third party, stay at home or even support Obama before I could possibly vote for Santorum, Gingrich or Paul. Paul is a nice old man, and I have sympathy for his peace emphasis, but he is too far out.

 It looks today like it will be Romney. Mormons have to believe lots of weird things, but they seem to be (generally) a fine, dedicated, moral people. I do hate to have the LDS Church get such a publcity boost with one of their own in the White House. But.... 

 God bless America.

 

[ishii]

I’m not fond of any of the GOP candidates, nor of Obama. The only Republican of the four I might vote for is Romney, never the other three. Instead, I would have to vote third party, stay at home or even support Obama before I could possibly vote for Santorum, Gingrich or Paul. Paul is a nice old man, and I have sympathy for his peace emphasis, but he is too far out.

 It looks today like it will be Romney. Mormons have to believe lots of weird things, but they seem to be (generally) a fine, dedicated, moral people. I do hate to have the LDS Church get such a publcity boost with one of their own in the White House. But.... 

 God bless America.

While I disagree with you that Obama is preferable to Gingrich, Santorum or Paul, I do think Romney might appeal to more moderate voters. He did get elected to statewide office in the liberal state of Massachusetts. It is my hope that Romney, if elected, will do these things: get our fiscal house on the path toward solvency. Pursue policies that will help our economy recover at a more robust (and historically normal) rate. Nominate contructionist judges to the supreme court. Reverse Obama’s efforts to abandon missile defense in favor of promises by Vladimir Putin to reduce Russia’s nuclear stockpile. Pursue a foreign policy that protects us from our enemies while at the same time recognizing that there are limits to what our military can do (or should be doing).

Ishii

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m not fond of any of the GOP candidates, nor of Obama. The only Republican of the four I might vote for is Romney, never the other three. Instead, I would have to vote third party, stay at home or even support Obama before I could possibly vote for Santorum, Gingrich or Paul. Paul is a nice old man, and I have sympathy for his peace emphasis, but he is too far out.

 It looks today like it will be Romney. Mormons have to believe lots of weird things, but they seem to be (generally) a fine, dedicated, moral people. I do hate to have the LDS Church get such a publcity boost with one of their own in the White House. But.... 

 God bless America.

I would not worry about it too much as you know the Jehovah Witness got a boost with Eisenhower and the majority of Presidents have been Protestant and that has done little for Protestant thought as the majority of Christians in America are becoming less and less Protestant. Let’s have more Protestant presidents to continue the trend.

 

[gamewell45]

Reverse Obama’s efforts to abandon missile defense in favor of promises by Vladimir Putin to reduce Russia’s nuclear stockpile.

Ishii

What makes you think that Obama would actually keep his end of the deal on abandoning missile defense anyhow; both Presidents are members of the same hypocrisy and I doubt in the long run either side fully keeps its promises.

 

[ishii]

What makes you think that Obama would actually keep his end of the deal on abandoning missile defense anyhow; both Presidents are members of the same hypocrisy and I doubt in the long run either side fully keeps its promises.

I think he keeps his promises to his leftist supporters - just like he kept his promises to the green lobby, the abortion lobby and the socialized medicine supporters. He is a committed leftist so I have no problem believing that he would follow through with his promise to abandon missile defense - the left hates missile defense. This isn’t Bill Clinton we’re dealing with.

Ishii

 

[Roy5]

I would not worry about it too much as you know the Jehovah Witness got a boost with Eisenhower and the majority of Presidents have been Protestant and that has done little for Protestant thought as the majority of Christians in America are becoming less and less Protestant. Let’s have more Protestant presidents to continue the trend.

Golly, CopticChristian certainly despises Protestantism. Does that mean he hates the Founding Fathers, too, like the 55 Protestant signers of the Declaration of Independence (one Catholic, Carroll of Md)? Every President but one was a Protestant, and the one exception was probably the biggest womanizer ever to occupy the White House. CopticChristian sounds like his loyalty is not to the USA and our difficult but amazing history. We made some very serious mistakes along the way - e. g. slavery - but I am proud of it myself.

As for Eisenhower, he was never a Jehovah Witness. There is some evidence that his mother became one, though that is debatable as various sects and cults use similiar names. In any case, you can't judge anyone by a parent. Eisenhower was baptized and received into the Presbyterian Church. And there have been few Americans who served their country with more dedication and skill than Eisenhower. Besides, Jehovah Witnesses are no more Protestant than the Mormons or Black Muslims are. Moreover, Jehovah Witnesses always have refused to be in the military, salute the flag, etc. which obviously rules out Eisenhower altogether. 

  It is true that Protestantism is now barely the majority religion in America while for years it was the faith of the vast majority. Some people have attributed our moral decline to less traditional Protestant influence - the diminishment of the old 'Protestant ethic'. The mainline denominations have suffered, though Catholicism probably has experienced the greatest exodus - 30 million or so. Catholicism roughly holds its own (23-25%) because of immigration - legal and illegal - especially of Hispanics. But it has been interesting that voter faiths in various primaries to date indicated that the Catholic majority have chosen to vote for Romney over Santorum and Gingrich, while evangelical Protestants have supported Santorum and Gingrich! Explain that! I think it shows that many - probably most - Catholics think independently and no longer think and act in concert with one another. American democracy seems to promote such independence, and I thank God for it. 

  It's time to stop this silly nitpicking among Christians. My Catholic ancestors thought Protestants were going to hell and my Protestant ancestors thought that Catholics were headed in that same direction. Both were wrong. uncharitable, uninformed, and victims of sheer bigotry.  America will be lost to Christianity entirely if such stupid Christian v. Christian attacks continue. Our faith should serve as a bridge and not as a barrier. As I recall, Christ asked: "Why call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Our first obligation is to Christ and not to any church or preacher.

 

[gamewell45]

I think he keeps his promises to his leftist supporters - just like he kept his promises to the green lobby, the abortion lobby and the socialized medicine supporters. He is a committed leftist so I have no problem believing that he would follow through with his promise to abandon missile defense - the left hates missile defense. This isn’t Bill Clinton we’re dealing with.

Ishii

I would not put much faith in his ability to keep his promises to the left. He’s done absolutely nothing for organized labor in spite of his promises that he would. He may claim to be a committed leftist, but I think that remains to be seen and in my view he’s nowhere close to being one.

You would have a very hard time convincing me that neither President are not members of the same hypocrisy; both want their country to have a leg up on the other one and while they might make commitments and or promises, neither one will completely stick by what they promise to do.

 

[ishii]

I would not put much faith in his ability to keep his promises to the left. He’s done absolutely nothing for organized labor in spite of his promises that he would. He may claim to be a committed leftist, but I think that remains to be seen and in my view he’s nowhere close to being one.

You would have a very hard time convincing me that neither President are not members of the same hypocrisy; both want their country to have a leg up on the other one and while they might make commitments and or promises, neither one will completely stick by what they promise to do.

I base what I said about Obama being a committed leftist on what he has said over the years and who he has associated with but above all, what he has done (or tried to do) while in power. When the country was faced with an economic crisis and also facing a looming fiscal/financial crisis what did he do? He rammed Obama care - a big huge budget buster - down our throats. Some have said that it didn’t go far enough and that is proof of Obama’s moderation. I say it is proof of the incremental approach to transforming America fundamentally toward the direction of cradle to grave welfare ala Euro-socialism. That incremental approach is necessary due to America’s aversion to sudden change and the fact that we are basically (still) a center/right nation. Think Obama-care doesn’t go far enough? Wait until next year when Obama - unhinged by any need for re-election gets to tell us just what the bill means - he will have Kathleen Sebelius explain to us all. We have gas at all-time high prices. What has Obama done? He has indulged his green energy supporters and opposed any significant measures that would help lower fuel costs. I don’t think I need to explain to you that Obama is definitely committed to the secular leftist social/cultural goals. The past few months should have convinced you of that. Obama is definitely a committed leftist in those areas. Foreign policy may be an area where Obama has been somewhat moderate - not closing guantanamo, keeping the troops in Afghanistan, etc. So you may have a point after all with regard to his words to Medvedev. I still don’t trust Obama on missile defense though - too risky.

Ishii

 

[gamewell45]

I base what I said about Obama being a committed leftist on what he has said over the years and who he has associated with but above all, what he has done (or tried to do) while in power. When the country was faced with an economic crisis and also facing a looming fiscal/financial crisis what did he do? He rammed Obama care - a big huge budget buster - down our throats. Some have said that it didn’t go far enough and that is proof of Obama’s moderation. I say it is proof of the incremental approach to transforming America fundamentally toward the direction of cradle to grave welfare ala Euro-socialism. That incremental approach is necessary due to America’s aversion to sudden change and the fact that we are basically (still) a center/right nation. Think Obama-care doesn’t go far enough? Wait until next year when Obama - unhinged by any need for re-election gets to tell us just what the bill means - he will have Kathleen Sebelius explain to us all. We have gas at all-time high prices. What has Obama done? He has indulged his green energy supporters and opposed any significant measures that would help lower fuel costs. I don’t think I need to explain to you that Obama is definitely committed to the secular leftist social/cultural goals. The past few months should have convinced you of that. Obama is definitely a committed leftist in those areas. Foreign policy may be an area where Obama has been somewhat moderate - not closing guantanamo, keeping the troops in Afghanistan, etc. So you may have a point after all with regard to his words to Medvedev. I still don’t trust Obama on missile defense though - too risky.

Ishii

While I appreciate your convictions on this matter, I can’t fully agree on everything you maintain which qualifies Obama as a committed leftist. I do feel that the heath care bill does not go anywhere far enough to be effective; in fact while it may appear to be radical, if Obama completely socialized medicine in this country and regulated costs, that, in my opinion, would be a serious commitment as a leftist. As such I feel that Obama is a moderate on healthcare which again, in my opinion, is unacceptable.

As far as indulging the Green’s/environmentalists, again Obama’s moderate policies on drilling are telling. While acceding to the environmentalists in this country to a certain point, any drilling of any sort should be prohibited; the potential risks to the environment that we have to live in out weight the perks of cheaper oil. Alternative fuel sources are the only rational option left to us at this time and in most cases, an overwhelming majority are environmentally safe.

I do agree you that Obama is somewhat moderate on foreign policy, although as a rule i have never fully trusted politicians when it comes to brokering deals irrespective of whatever political party they belong to. I think that there are too many variables that the American people are never made aware of until perhaps decades after the deals were struck most likely under the guise of “national security”.

And of course what I mentioned in my prior post was that Obama has done virtually nothing for organized labor in this country. A true leftist would have sat down at the table with the opponents and cut a deal that both sides could live with.

I don’t expect you to agree with me, but that’s where I’m coming from.

 

[ishii]

While I appreciate your convictions on this matter,

Likewise.

I can’t fully agree on everything you maintain which qualifies Obama as a committed leftist. I do feel that the heath care bill does not go anywhere far enough to be effective; in fact while it may appear to be radical, if Obama completely socialized medicine in this country and regulated costs, that, in my opinion, would be a serious commitment as a leftist. As such I feel that Obama is a moderate on healthcare which again, in my opinion, is unacceptable.

Another poster, Cmatt, basically says the same thing: Obamacare doesn’t do enought. But my point was that just because Obama doesn’t go as far as the left might want him to go doesn’t mean he isn’t a committed leftist. As I said earlier, going as far as the left wanted him to go would likely have meant a bigger rebuke in the midterms than he actually got. I believe that some on the left would seem to prefer the incremental approach rather than risk alienating the center/right part of the electorate. As for Obamacare not going far enough, some of the analysis I have heard is that it is a huge first step toward ultimately the kind of socialized medicine that the left desires, i.e. sets in motion the process.

As far as indulging the Green’s/environmentalists, again Obama’s moderate policies on drilling are telling. While acceding to the environmentalists in this country to a certain point, any drilling of any sort should be prohibited; the potential risks to the environment that we have to live in out weight the perks of cheaper oil. Alternative fuel sources are the only rational option left to us at this time and in most cases, an overwhelming majority are environmentally safe.

For me, the veto of the Keystone pipeline was quite telling - it was a veto that will come back to haunt him, considering the price of gas now. I think the political realities are such that if Obama is against all drilling it is basically the end of his re-election bid, so he has no choice.

I do agree you that Obama is somewhat moderate on foreign policy, although as a rule i have never fully trusted politicians when it comes to brokering deals irrespective of whatever political party they belong to.  I think that there are too many variables that the American people are never made aware of until perhaps decades after the deals were struck most likely under the guise of "national security".

Sometimes foreign policy issues transcend the right/left spectrum. Compare Ron Paul’s foreign policy (right wing) and that of the left. Both would like to see the US not get involved in wars abroad and get out of Afghanistan, opposed the Iraq war, Patriot Act, etc. Of course the left would like to see the US coordinate foreign policy with international organizations like the UN more than the right.

And of course what I mentioned in my prior post was that Obama has done virtually nothing for organized labor in this country. A true leftist would have sat down at the table with the opponents and cut a deal that both sides could live with.

I don’t really understand this analysis - perhaps you could elaborate.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but that's where I'm coming from.

I see where you’re coming from - I prefer “clarity to agreement” as Dennis Prager says. Nice to be able to have a civilized conversation even if we disagree on many issues.

Ishii

 

[62Joy]

@ qui est ce

And no, there isn’t anything wrong with being ultra rich. Since you listen to NPR, you know the good that the Gates foundation is dong, as well as others. So what gave you t idea that I’m against wealth? Because I mentioned that condition without qualifying i other than suggest that there were ultra rich people sponsoring Fox? There are. Dis I say ALL of them do that? Show me. Perhaps you might do well to take a course in General Semantics or critical thinking. I am sure that you are personally a wonderful individual. But you did not do yourself credit with this particular post. That is why there is an op-ed for either side. I’m sure that the “conservative” position is lily white and always spot on? Lord, even Adam Smith said that the danger of capitalism is that it tends to function to siphon wealth to the top, and that there needs to be a balancing mechanism in place. Please show me how the Norquist pledge Republicans are helping with that, or tell me what suggestions you might have.

If you listen to NPR, you also know that people in social democracies, particularly Germany, are laughing at us for our misuse of such terms as “socialism” and Communism" citing especially health care as related to our stance as a “Christian” nation. So while I don’t care for the “left,” I have to side with them, despite my disgust, because they are at least trying to act like Adam Smith inspired capitalist conservatives regarding the social safety net.

Great post. In my opinion the danger with any philosophy, in this case political philosophy, is not realizing that there is always something meaningful to be learned from the other side. That is the problem in today’s environment - rigidity does not leave any place for negotiation. I don’t agree with either party 100%. I do believe that a nation can not claim “greatness” when a large part of their population is living in poverty, hungry, uneducated or mistreated and the government is content to leave it that way. We, in this country have always looked down on other countries who had a “ruling class” while the ordinary citizen lived in poverty. The Democrats seem to “get it” better than the GOP. Also the fact that education is the answer. In my own state just yesterday, I read that our GOP governor is again making teachers pay more into their pensions while, once again, calling for no raises and the laying off of teachers. There seems to be a troubling attack on public education going on all over this country. I don’t see how more uneducated people is the answer.

 

[Roy5]

A few thoughts.

 1. **President Obama is a decent man** and not some sort of clandestine Muslim, dangerous leftist, or Black extremist. Yes, he is enough of an idealist to be a bit left of center. I'm not sure how qualified he is to be president, but I think that doubt would be present no matter who occupies the oval office. A huge job!

  2. **The country is in trouble financially in large part because entitlements** are becoming to huge a burden. Social security and medicare are superb programs, except that they were crafted without realization that outgo would soon exceed income, mainly because people are living much longer these days. Painful adjustments must be made - and soon. And it is true - the welfare system does much good, but also is grossly exploited by smart but corrupted (and spoiled) citizens. 

 3. **Another drain on the public trough are those continuing wars overseas**, They have cost a trillion or two, not counting the huge cost in caring for the maimed, veterans benefits, veterans pensions, etc., that will be with us for decades. That old military-industrial complex that Eisenhowe warned against is active and we must guard against it. While our bravest die and come home without legs or stable minds, some CEOs make billions.

 4. **Santorum is sincere, but he is a neanderthal man.** I agree with his vision of a more moral society, and much of his dire analysis is correct, but he is not at all qualified to become president. When he talks about Satan, assails Kennedy's historic address in 1960, exalts homeschooling, seems sympathetic to such groups as Opus Dei and the Legion of Christ, views artificial birth control as wrong, etc. - no, not ready to be president. A church Deacon perhaps, but not our chief executive. Too naive, too divisive, too doctrinaire, too hawkish, too out of touch with the world as it is today. 

 5. **Santorum won in the deep South because **many Evangelicals thought that he is an Evangelical. His devout Catholicism wasn't widely known. Beyond that, Evangelicals and ultra-conservative Catholics are on the same page when it comes to such social issues as prayer in schools, sex education, abortion, gay rights, etc. 

 6. **Most Evangelicals in the deep South, many of whom still suspect Catholicism, seemed ready to accept a right-wing Catholic over the moderate Mormon Romney **and certainly over Obama, whom they view as at best a wildly radical 'Christian' (Jeremiah Wright variety) and, at worst, a sneaky Muslim who is deliberately sabotaging America in preparation for Shariah law!

 7.** It will be interesting to see how Evangelicals vote in November if it's Romney vs. Obama**. Go for Romney? Vote third party? Stay at home? A few may even support Obama over the alternative. Actually, I'll be interested to find out how I will be voting. I have confidence in Romney, who acts like a president and has considerable business experience, but I hesitate to deprive Obama of more time to put his ideas into practice. I also resent the gross hate-Obama propaganda, so much of it false.  A Congressional impasse troubles me more than which man will be our next president. Romney's V-P choice may play a major role in my decision, also. 

 God bless America!

 

[ishii]

 **A few thoughts.**

 1. **President Obama is a decent man** and not some sort of clandestine Muslim, dangerous leftist, or Black extremist. Yes, he is enough of an idealist to be a bit left of center

Obama is much more than “a bit left of center”. He is a committed leftist ideologue. His history, choice of mentors, speeches, and above all else, his votes and actions as a state senator, US senator, and now president confirm this. Like all leftists, he wants the government to control more of our lives. To say “he’s not a muslim or black extremist” is a straw man. Most of the serious criticism I see is of his policies which seek to transform our country by doing an end run around the constitution.

1. The country is in trouble financially in large part because entitlements are becoming to huge a burden. Social security and medicare are superb programs, except that they were crafted without realization that outgo would soon exceed income, mainly because people are living much longer these days. Painful adjustments must be made - and soon. And it is true - the welfare system does much good, but also is grossly exploited by smart but corrupted (and spoiled) citizens.

Agree.

3. **Another drain on the public trough are those continuing wars overseas**,   That old military-industrial complex that Eisenhowe warned against is active and we must guard against it. While our bravest die and come home without legs or stable minds, some CEOs make billions.

Agree, somewhat. As for your last comments, I don’t know how you can give the govt. power to limit the salaries of CEO’s and not think the govt. will start doing other things with that power. If someone like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates starts a company that is hugely successful why shouldn’t they make billions?

1. Santorum is sincere, but he is a neanderthal man. I agree with his vision of a more moral society, and much of his dire analysis is correct, but he is not at all qualified to become president. When he talks about Satan, assails Kennedy’s historic address in 1960, exalts homeschooling, seems sympathetic to such groups as Opus Dei and the Legion of Christ, views artificial birth control as wrong, etc. - no, not ready to be president.

Not sure what you’re saying. Are you saying that someone who believes the things that Santorum believes is not ready to be president, or that someone who speaks out during a presidential campaign about those things is not ready to be president? If the former, I disagree. If the latter I agree to some extent. Santorum is totally justified and correct to point out the relationship of strong families and virtues to the overall health of our country - economy, etc. I think he focuses too much on some of the particulars such that it makes the debate about him, and not Obama’s failures (which is what the campaign should be about). Traditional orthodox catholicism does not represent a large part of the electorate. He ought to focus more on the general issues and crises facing our country.

 5. **Santorum won in the deep South because **many Evangelicals thought that he is an Evangelical. His devout Catholicism wasn't widely known. Beyond that, Evangelicals and ultra-conservative Catholics are on the same page when it comes to such social issues as prayer in schools, sex education, abortion, gay rights, etc.

Where did you get the idea that evangelicals thought Santorum was an evangelical protestant? Source? Santorum won in the deep south because he is a social conservative and so are the voters in the GOP primaries in the deep south.

6. **Most Evangelicals in the deep South, many of whom still suspect Catholicism, seemed ready to accept a right-wing Catholic over the moderate Mormon Romney **and certainly over Obama, whom they view as at best a wildly radical 'Christian' (Jeremiah Wright variety) and, at worst, a sneaky Muslim who is deliberately sabotaging America in preparation for Shariah law!

More strawman/caricature of the criticisms of Obama. There are real, valid and serious concerns about what Obama is doing to our country and your caricature detracts from that. Are there some unfounded criticisms of Obama? Yes. But the majority of the criticisms are based on the truth of what Obama is doing and who he is.

7.** It will be interesting to see how Evangelicals vote in November if it's Romney vs. Obama**. Go for Romney? Vote third party? Stay at home? A few may even support Obama over the alternative. Actually, I'll be interested to find out how I will be voting. I have confidence in Romney, who acts like a president and has considerable business experience, but I hesitate to deprive Obama of more time to put his ideas into practice. I also resent the gross hate-Obama propaganda, so much of it false.

I don’t “hate” Obama but I hate what he is doing. Why do you insist on caricaturing those opposed to Obama as “haters” ? Why do you hesitate to deprive OBama more time to put his ideas into practice? Do you agree with what he is doing or not? Do you agree with Obama care, HHS mandate, runaway spending, spending money on green energy that fails, scrapping missile defense, etc. ? Do you like how Obama restricts drilling and exploration for oil while the price of gas increases? I don’t. Who would you like to see Romney pick for VP?

Ishii

 

[Roy5]

ishii

Don’t have time to respond to all your points. Here’s a few replies.

** l. Obama is liberal-left but not radical left**. There is abundant evidence of this but I’ have to to let you find it yourself. Probably you’re aware that he has angered many on the far left. I read publications of all sorts - from the Nation to the National Review, from America to Our Sunday Visitor - so I like to think that I sense the whole picture.

** 4. I guess I’m one of those who favor a Catholicism that is not stuck in some past era**. I agree, for example, with the pro-life position of the Church but not the hostility to artificial birth control. I am troubled when people talk about Satan - frankly - because it makes me wonder if they are too superstitious. While I have no problem with homeschooling, it too often goes along with unfair attacks upon our schools. (A daughter is a teacher.)

** 5. There was a newspaper article recently** - I may have it somewhere but will not make an effort to find it - that in the deep south exit polls indicated that the majority of voters did not know he was a Catholic, many believing that he was a born-again Evangelical.

** 7. I have to conclude, from conversations I have had, that many of his critics hate Obama. **I’m convinced that some of it - certainly not all - is buttressed by racial prejudice. Many actually believe he is making a deliberate attempt to destroy America because he hates America or is a secret Muslim etc. As for the HHS mandate, I agree with the Church but wonder if the hierarchy’s campaign against it will do more to hurt Obama or the Church. Some of my Catholic friends are concerned with what they view as too much politics among Bishops etc. As for drilling and such, under Obama the USA produces more oil than ever. What troubles me is that in this world market, where patriotism seems unimportant to most businesses, thousands upon thousands barrels of US oil are shippined overseas everyday. Explain that to me. I’m also favorable toward a pragmatic (not ideological) effort to encourage alternative sources of fuel. And you?

  As for missiles and all, I am something of a peacenik and Santorum and Gingrich - even Romney - can sound like wild-eyed hawks ready to bomb Iran soon after taking office. Scary. 

  All in all, I try to be a Christian, and Jesus seemed to be very concerned about caring for and sharing with the poor along with living in peace. Two wars have been enough. Obama is the most likely, I think, to emphasize diplomacy rather than threateto n 'bomb 'em'.

  But thanks God we live in a democracy where we can still express our differing opinions freely. God bless America and God bless our president now and after next January, whomever we elect.

  PS I would like to vote Republican, and used to - my family tradition. But that has become less possible as the GOP has been increasingly taken over by hardcore ideologues.

 

[ishii]

**ishii**

Don’t have time to respond to all your points. Here’s a few replies.
.

Thanks for responding. As for your replies:

1. Whether Obama is “liberal left” or “radical left” depends on one’s perspective. I would say, liberal left is close enought (and bad enough) for me.
2. As for being troubled by talk about Satan - I would encourage you to read the book Screwtape Letters by CS Lewis. While you’re at it, Mere Christianity by CS Lewis might better explain the concept of Satan/demons rebelling against God. Remember, the most greatest trick the devil pulled is to convince the world he doesn’t exist. He does exist.

People homeschool for a variety of reasons - to instill values that the public schools don’t, e.g. There is much that is wrong with our public school system - have you seen the movie “Waiting for Superman” ? Criticizing public or catholic schools should not be interpreted as an attack on the teachers.

1. I would be interested in seein the article on southern evangelicals thinking Santorum is a born again evangelical. I find that hard to believe, but its possible, I suppose.
2. I truly hope that liberals don’t play the race card in this election. The problem with saying those who are against Obama are racists is how do you prove it? It is also an ad hominem attack as well. Obama’s policies have failed enough to warrant deep seated opposition. If the right hates Obama because of racism, then why did they elect Alan West to congress? Why did they come out in droves to support Herman Cain? It doesn’t add up, imo. If Obama and Democrats play the race card, I can only assume they are desperate.

I am also for developing alternative sources of fuel - that work and are cost effective. The problem is that Obama funds green energy sources not because they are effective and efficient sources of power, but rather because they appease the leftist environmental lobby and keep the sierra club members’ donations flowing in to the Obama campaign.

I can understand where you’re coming from and appreciate you thoughts and civil tone.

Ishii

 

[Roy5]

ishii

Time for just a couple responses.

I've read a lot of CS Lewis in the past. Great literature. However, I do have trouble with Christians - many of them Protestant evangelists - who run around emphasizing Satan. He can become a major boogey-man, an excuse for wrong-doing ('the devil made me do it'), etc. Lots of superstition revolves around Satan, too. When Santorum focuses on Satan, plus much more of what he says, I view him as risky to be in the White House. By the way, I just saw him interviewed on EWTN's Arroyo's World Over. Talk about separation of church and state. Arroyo and EWTN apparently don't believe in it. I wonder how many Catholic Democrats he is alienating further from the Church. In all fairness, the GOP ought to be paying EWTN for the free air time it gives to its candidates and talking points. 

 I'm not interested in playing the race card, as the Sharptons and Jacksons are doing in the current Martin case (and at every opportunity. when a mike is available).  I detest racial prejudice and racial politics. The simple truth, however, is that the old South was solidly Democratic. As LBJohnson warned when he signed the civil rights legislation, 'there goes the South'. What was once the most Democratic part of the nation is now the most Republican. How can one dispute that race has played a role in that change?

 One recent experience. I was seated by a woman I did not know at a luncheon. She started a one-on-one conversation: "We have to get rid of that evil man in the White House." I quietly suggested that he was our President and I respected both him and the office. She then targeted his wife. "She's nothing but an uppity 'N----".  I could not bear the bigotry and suggested that Mrs. Obama seemed to be a gifted wife, a graduate of leading colleges, a good mother, that she was seeking to help Veterans' families, pushing for better diets, etc. That made no difference to this woman. "Why does she have to act so uppity? Who does she think she is?" Now, tell me, is that racism or what? 

  I'm well aware that most Republicans are not racists. After all, I come from a solid GOP background and most of my kinfolk still vote GOP - automatically. But racism is one factor that leads to excessive hatred of Obama among some. I am thoroughly convinced of that. Not to see this is to be blind to reality. Since childhood I have been committed to "liberty and justice for all" - something I learned to recite in  'notorious' public schools. They always seem to pick out a few bad apples among the public schools and then smear the whole system. It has caused me to wonder why thousands of parochial schools have closed, including the one in my home village. My family always had qualms about religious segregation as well as racial segregation. The main problem in the public schools stems from problems in society - fatherless children, delinquent parents, etc. I lived in New York City 20 years and became very familiar with all this.

  I have enormous admiration for the devoted priests and nuns in the Church. The Church has done (and still does) superb work in health care, education, etc, I am not so sure about the hierarchy and have developed considerable skepticism, in part because of narrow and arrogant media like EWTN and the way in which the hierarchy, here and abroad, tried so hard to cover over the sex scandal that has so badly hurt the Church. I also favor such reforms as the right of priests to marry if they wish, a more substantial role for women in the church (Deacons?), the end of the foolish ban on artificial birth control, etc, As for abortion and other issues, I agree with the Church. I also wish such Catholics as Santorum focused more attention upon peaceful alternatives instead of belligerent 'we will bomb them' rhetoric that misleads and alarms the American people. If we move forward by faith we do not need to kill countless more innocent young Americans, Iranis, etc. I place my trust in God and not in bigger and better chariots of war.

  Have a blessed Easter, which assures us that ultimately right defeats wrong, good wins over evil, and life gains the victory over death. Let us make religion a bridge rather than a barrier.

 

[CopticChristian]

ishii

Time for just a couple responses.

** I’ve read a lot of CS Lewis in the past. Great literature. However, I do have trouble with Christians - many of them Protestant evangelists - who run around emphasizing Satan. **He can become a major boogey-man, an excuse for wrong-doing (‘the devil made me do it’), etc. Lots of superstition revolves around Satan, too. When Santorum focuses on Satan, plus much more of what he says, I view him as risky to be in the White House. By the way, I just saw him interviewed on EWTN’s Arroyo’s World Over. Talk about separation of church and state. Arroyo and EWTN apparently don’t believe in it. I wonder how many Catholic Democrats he is alienating further from the Church. In all fairness, the GOP ought to be paying EWTN for the free air time it gives to its candidates and talking points.

 I'm not interested in playing the race card, as the Sharptons and Jacksons are doing in the current Martin case (and at every opportunity. when a mike is available).  I detest racial prejudice and racial politics. The simple truth, however, is that the old South was solidly Democratic. As LBJohnson warned when he signed the civil rights legislation, 'there goes the South'. What was once the most Democratic part of the nation is now the most Republican. How can one dispute that race has played a role in that change?

 One recent experience. I was seated by a woman I did not know at a luncheon. She started a one-on-one conversation: "We have to get rid of that evil man in the White House." I quietly suggested that he was our President and I respected both him and the office. She then targeted his wife. "She's nothing but an uppity 'N----".  I could not bear the bigotry and suggested that Mrs. Obama seemed to be a gifted wife, a graduate of leading colleges, a good mother, that she was seeking to help Veterans' families, pushing for better diets, etc. That made no difference to this woman. "Why does she have to act so uppity? Who does she think she is?" Now, tell me, is that racism or what? 

  I'm well aware that most Republicans are not racists. After all, I come from a solid GOP background and most of my kinfolk still vote GOP - automatically. But racism is one factor that leads to excessive hatred of Obama among some. I am thoroughly convinced of that. Not to see this is to be blind to reality. Since childhood I have been committed to "liberty and justice for all" - something I learned to recite in  'notorious' public schools. They always seem to pick out a few bad apples among the public schools and then smear the whole system. It has caused me to wonder why thousands of parochial schools have closed, including the one in my home village. My family always had qualms about religious segregation as well as racial segregation. The main problem in the public schools stems from problems in society - fatherless children, delinquent parents, etc. I lived in New York City 20 years and became very familiar with all this.

  I have enormous admiration for the devoted priests and nuns in the Church. The Church has done (and still does) superb work in health care, education, etc, I am not so sure about the hierarchy and have developed considerable skepticism, in part because of narrow and arrogant media like EWTN and the way in which the hierarchy, here and abroad, tried so hard to cover over the sex scandal that has so badly hurt the Church. I also favor such reforms as the right of priests to marry if they wish, a more substantial role for women in the church (Deacons?), the end of the foolish ban on artificial birth control, etc, As for abortion and other issues, I agree with the Church. I also wish such Catholics as Santorum focused more attention upon peaceful alternatives instead of belligerent 'we will bomb them' rhetoric that misleads and alarms the American people. If we move forward by faith we do not need to kill countless more innocent young Americans, Iranis, etc. I place my trust in God and not in bigger and better chariots of war.

  Have a blessed Easter, which assures us that ultimately right defeats wrong, good wins over evil, and life gains the victory over death. Let us make religion a bridge rather than a barrier.

Roy,

If you don’t like Santorum then you will have a problem reading what Jesus is said to have taught about Satan and Hell. You may want to look at what your Christian thoughts are based on what was taught.

 

[62Joy]

Roy5- You articulate your and my position much better than I ever could. Thank you. I always feel that I am somehow “anti-church” because I am supporting the President in this election. I too was a long time Republican who moved away from the Republican Party when I thought it was becoming too extreme. I am a moderate and I don’t like extremes on either side and feel that negotiation is the way you get things done. I was also troubled by the terrible public discourse since the day President Obama won the election… When the right wing media came out the day after the election… calling him names like the “messiah” the “anti-christ” and questioning where he was born. . You had to wonder where all that hate came from before he even set foot in the White House. After attending a couple of the town hall meetings during the health care debate…I was shocked at the name calling that went on there as well. I stood up and made a comment that people should set aside their preconceived ideas and I defended Pres. Obama. After the meeting I was stopped by a man who told me I was wrong and yelled in my face that we would be sorry for putting a @@@@@@ black Muslim in the White House. You are right - prejudice is behind much of what you hear. Definitely, not from everyone. Many people are color blind and their dislike is simply based on policy. I respect that…but am sure that is not the case with many people. Blessings to you.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Roy5- You articulate your and my position much better than I ever could. Thank you. I always feel that I am somehow “anti-church” because I am supporting the President in this election. I too was a long time Republican who moved away from the Republican Party when I thought it was becoming too extreme. I am a moderate and I don’t like extremes on either side and feel that negotiation is the way you get things done. I was also troubled by the terrible public discourse since the day President Obama won the election… When the right wing media came out the day after the election… calling him names like the “messiah” the “anti-christ” and questioning where he was born. . You had to wonder where all that hate came from before he even set foot in the White House. After attending a couple of the town hall meetings during the health care debate…I was shocked at the name calling that went on there as well. I stood up and made a comment that people should set aside their preconceived ideas and I defended Pres. Obama. After the meeting I was stopped by a man who told me I was wrong and yelled in my face that we would be sorry for putting a @@@@@@ black Muslim in the White House. You are right - prejudice is behind much of what you hear. Definitely, not from everyone. Many people are color blind and their dislike is simply based on policy. I respect that…but am sure that is not the case with many people. Blessings to you.

No one on this thread has said any of what you wrote. Why don’t you argue the merits of the posts here rather than setting up your strawmen?

PS, the name calling and hate on the left is shocking to me as well.