Republican Primary

[mlund]

Being a good Catholic doesn’t equate to being a good President.

Minding the context of the response given you’d note that it addressed someone’s confusion over whether Santorum was a Catholic or some sort of Evangelical Protestant. It’s crystal clear from even cursory scrutiny that Rick Santorum is not a “Catholic in Name Only” or a “Christmas and Easter Catholic” but an active participant in Catholic ministry and fraternity and membership in one of the only two surviving knightly orders of the Church (those being the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem and Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta).

While we members of fraternities like the Knights of Columbus borrow from history to name our organizations and membership, the Order of the Holy Sepulchre and the Order of Malta are surviving orders of actual Knighthood in the Church.

• Marty Lund

 

[_Abyssinia]

Was Santorum’s Triple Victory Last Night a Referendum on Obamacare’s HHS Mandate?

One provocative take on what fueled this Santorum surge is Larry Kudlow’s (who most people will know from his financial show on CNBC):

“A vote for Rick Santorum tonight was the easiest and most immediate voter path to protest Obamacare and Obama’s pro-abortion view.”

Kathyrn Lopez says Kudlow told her: It’s a referendum on Obamacare and the Department of Health and Human Services mandate.

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=26348

 

[TraditonRules]

I wouldn’t say it’s essential exactly. It’s more than possible to be an ethical and responsible leader without being a catholic. Some would argue it’s even easier to be a good leader because you’re making decisions based on the well-being of all the people, not just one minority demographic. To be honest I think it’s inconsiderate of us to expect a leader to make decisions based on a dogma that the majority of Americans don’t subscribe to. That’s why separation of church and state is one of the founding cornerstones of the country. Look at what the theistic government has done to Iran. Christians who live in Iran are second class citizens. Having a catholic leader with a catholic agenda would make non-catholics feel like second class citizens in their own country. That’s why we (are supposed) to have a secular government.

Obama is forcing State on the Church, any complaints there??

Catholics do not treat people as Muslims as in your Iran example and would be treated far better if the religions were reversed.

In God we trust, God Bless America, the ten commandments outside our federal buildings…proves your view America is a secular country is a fallacy.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Some things on here make me scratch my head in puzzlement, Being a good Catholic would provide essential foundation of a good leader. Case in point with Obama we have a pro abortion and homosexual agenda.

But judging by the last election, he is the ‘right one’ for Catholics, and I don’t expect much different this time out.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I wouldn’t say it’s essential exactly. It’s more than possible to be an ethical and responsible leader without being a catholic. Some would argue it’s even easier to be a good leader because you’re making decisions based on the well-being of all the people, not just one minority demographic. To be honest I think it’s inconsiderate of us to expect a leader to make decisions based on a dogma that the majority of Americans don’t subscribe to. That’s why separation of church and state is one of the founding cornerstones of the country. Look at what the theistic government has done to Iran. Christians who live in Iran are second class citizens. Having a catholic leader with a catholic agenda would make non-catholics feel like second class citizens in their own country. That’s why we (are supposed) to have a secular government.

What ‘dogma’ would that be? And why do you suppose it would be bad for the general population?

 

[zab]

Is Rick Santorum right for Catholics? You bet he is!

Faith Is An Important Part of this Country

 

[TraditonRules]

But judging by the last election, he is the ‘right one’ for Catholics, and I don’t expect much different this time out.

If you mean 50% of Catholics will vote Obama I agree. My frustration is the Nicene creed and claiming to be monolithic church is a fallacy. To many Catholics ignore the religion and do what is convenient. No better or worse than a protestant.

 

[deadstar33]

Obama is forcing State on the Church, any complaints there??

Catholics do not treat people as Muslims as in your Iran example and would be treated far better if the religions were reversed.

In God we trust, God Bless America, the ten commandments outside our federal buildings…proves your view America is a secular country is a fallacy.

My point is easily supported:

“The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion…”

Your view of America as a Christian-ruled country is thus a fallacy, and more importantly, it’s illegal. Muslims would be treated better in a catholic-led U.S. then christians in Iran? Yes, almost definitely. Does that change the fact that they would be second-class citizens under a catholic leader? No. A secular government, if executed properly, means no demographic is favored over any another, which is how it should always be if we want to live in a just country for all.

 

[Calvin_Hobbs]

Does the LDS Church still believe Holy Mother Church is controlled by Satan? Might be a problem if they have not changed that position.

Semper Fidelis
Bruce

 

[irishpatrick]

Every man who has filled the office of the Presidency changes. I think it is not a stretch in this incredibly trying era to desire a man with a Catholic conscience to fill the office and to meet those changes and the worldly challenges with that same Catholic conscience.

Santorum might very well have the exact correct blend of faith, values, love for his family, love for his country, love for liberty and freedom, and love for the poor and downtrodden.

One thing is for sure–Santorum’s conscience regarding life and marriage is so many levels above Obama, that Obama could not see the top from where he stands.

 

[Corki]

Why wouldn’t someone’s views on human life who might be President next year, who is all over the news, not concern Catholics? It happened in 2005, but how many people payed attention to Mitt back then outside of his state?

I didn’t say that it shouldn’t concern Catholics. There are, however, very specific rules to opening threads in the Catholic News subforum, including that it be recent. I don’t think this is recent or news. I think it should be discussed in another part of CAF.

 

[TraditonRules]

My point is easily supported:

“The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion…”

Your view of America as a Christian-ruled country is thus a fallacy, and more importantly, it’s illegal. Muslims would be treated better in a catholic-led U.S. then christians in Iran? Yes, almost definitely. Does that change the fact that they would be second-class citizens under a catholic leader? No. A secular government, if executed properly, means no demographic is favored over any another, which is how it should always be if we want to live in a just country for all.

Dec of Independence; endowed by our Creator. Obama forbids saying that phrase-go figure.

One example after another we are a Christian nation.

Obama is a secular govt and what we got for it was record abortions, homosexuality deemed as norm, hostility towards religion where the State tells the church what to do.

 

[rlg94086]

As a Ron Paul supporter I could say much the same thing. I will probably continue to support Dr. Paul throughout the primary process (assuming he’s still in it come May, when NC votes :doh2: ), but if Santorum got the nomination, it might be my one and only chance to vote for a Catholic politician who actually seems to follow Church teaching!

Ron Paul isn’t one to quit early, even if he has no chance of winning. I suspect he will still be in, when you vote.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

My point is easily supported:

“The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion…”

Your view of America as a Christian-ruled country is thus a fallacy, and more importantly, it’s illegal. Muslims would be treated better in a catholic-led U.S. then christians in Iran? Yes, almost definitely. Does that change the fact that they would be second-class citizens under a catholic leader? No. A secular government, if executed properly, means no demographic is favored over any another, which is how it should always be if we want to live in a just country for all.

Secular governments means secular marriage, secular everything, and eventually gay marriage and abortion and other perversions will find themselves acceptable. A Catholic government will at least make sure that the neutral state of being is residing in the true Church, and being “of the world” is the aberration, while in a secular state, being “of the world” is the neutral state and being faithful to the true Church requires a departure from the norm.

There is no reason for a separation of church and state (which is by the way not in the Constitution, no matter how many people think it is). Americanism, the belief that separation of church and state is a guaranteed right, was condemned as a heresy by Pope Leo XIII. You can not deny the social reign of Christ and the Church’s role in the civil domain.

 

[The_Rock]

My point is easily supported:

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion…"

Amazing how those who try to advocate for a government free from all Christian influence (except radical secularism) always cut off the wording of the 1st amendment. Notice the wording of the actual 1st amendment below:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

 

[Monte_RCMS]

My point is easily supported:

“The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion…”

Your view of America as a Christian-ruled country is thus a fallacy, and more importantly, it’s illegal. Muslims would be treated better in a catholic-led U.S. then christians in Iran? Yes, almost definitely. Does that change the fact that they would be second-class citizens under a catholic leader? No. A secular government, if executed properly, means no demographic is favored over any another, which is how it should always be if we want to live in a just country for all.

So … the “easily supported” quotation of the First Amendment is false.

The post is not a quote at all.

So, why is it in quotation marks?

This is the text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No paraphrasing needed … [and then put into quotation marks!]

I don’t think so.

 

[Voting4Life]

Rick Santorum’s already been Johnny-on-the-Spot on this issue.

Mitt being Johnny-Come-Lately is definitely better than him not showing up at all.

Also, it’s not surprising to see Yahoo! News continuing to push the same dishonest reporting and labeling on their news sites. This isn’t a rule about “contraceptive coverage” - though that’s also a reprehensible component. Even more urgently this issue is about forcing people to pay for abortions - both surgical and chemical. I hate seeing the media repeat the Planned Parenthood lie over and over that chemical abortions are “contraception.”

• Marty Lund

Looks like Santorum is doing better too. He looks like our best shot.

 

[scipio337]

Ironic!

In December 2005, Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, even though some Catholics view the morning-after pill as a form of abortion.

articles.boston.com/2012-02-03/nation/31017576_1_catholic-hospitals-emergency-contraception-religious-liberty

 

[ProVobis]

Time for Paul to drop out. Caucus States are supposed to be his strength and he got stomped.

His message against the Fed must continue, even if he doesn’t win nomination. The Fed affects everyone, mostly adversely. These elections should be about ideology; otherwise they’re just about personal ambition and demagoguing and I don’t want any part of that.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

His message against the Fed must continue, even if he doesn’t win nomination. The Fed affects everyone, mostly adversely. These elections should be about ideology; otherwise they’re just about personal ambition and demagoguing and I don’t want any part of that.

Make no mistake, it has nothing to do with ideology. Its all about personality. We have entered the “American Idol” phase of American politics. Who cares what a person stands for. They need to be young, charming, charismatic, gifted orators who can wee wee up the masses. That is why most Republicans look at Romney and Santorum and say…well, if that’s it, that’s it. I’ll pick up a bottle of Pepto-Bismal on the way to the polling station.