February 22, 2012

Satanorum, can we ignore 'im?

Everybody's talking about Satan, Satan and Santorum. I tried to ignore 'em. Back in 2008, Santorum said:
"This is a spiritual war. And the father of lies has his sights on what you would think the father of lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country — the United States of America... If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age?"
Satan?!!



Now, Santorum's saying pay no attention to that Ruler of Demons, that Prince of the Power of the Air, that Spirit That Now Worketh in the Children of Unbelief, that Dragon, that Tempter, that Beelzebub.
"You know, I'm a person of faith. I believe in good and evil," he told reporters following a rally here. "I think if somehow or another because you're a person of faith you believe in good and evil is a disqualifier for president we're going to have a very small pool of candidates who can run for president."...

"If they want to dig up old speeches of me talking to religious groups, they can go ahead and do so, but I'm going to stay on message and I'm going to talk about things that Americans want to talk about which is creating jobs, making our country more secure, and yeah, taking on the forces around his [sic] world who want to do harm to America, and you bet I will take them on"....
Oddly enough, if I were Satan — and it's Santorum who pushed me into this flight of fancy — that's exactly what I would tell my followers to say if they were challenged about whether I'd set my sights on America. I'd say any references to me are merely colorful ways of expressing the abstraction of evil, and now, let's get back to what everyone really wants to talk about: how to get more jobs, more wealth and material goods, for the the people of America.

ADDED: "... taking on the forces around his world..." Is that a typo or did he say "his"? And if he said "his," who is he

140 comments:

Andy R. said...

Dude is crazy. But since Republicans dislike Romney and think he will lose against Obama, they are in a bit of a pickle.

Original Mike said...

"Oddly enough, if I were Satan ..."

How can we be sure that you are not?

Original Mike said...

Although, on reflection, I think Satan is the guy writing the word verifications.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

And where are the posts condemning Obama sitting in a "church" where the "Reverend" said the government deliberately infected blacks with HIV and God Damn America!

???

Or is that like normal religion type of stuff?

Andy R. said...

"taking on the forces around his [sic] world who want to do harm to America, and you bet I will take them on"

Like, um, Satan?

rhhardin said...

Satan comes from decencies, Hannah Arendt via Vicki Hearne points out.

garage mahal said...

Bu bu but what about ______ ??!!

Andy R. said...

Someone said he needs to tone it down

Speaking of, this was pretty good, and fits in nicely with the previous post as well.

AWOOOGAH!!! Conservatives Start To Sound The Alarm Over Rick Santorum’s Extremism
As a result, many have started to hit the panic button, and they’re doing so in a way you probably wouldn’t have expected from the GOP, which still counts evangelicals among its strongest and most reliable base vote.
...
“In short, Santorum on social issues is not a conservative but a reactionary, seeking to obliterate the national consensus on a range of issues beyond gay marriage and abortion.”
...
Santorum is putting the entire GOP in danger with his focus on extreme social conservatism, Gingrich said.
...
A wise observer told me years ago that for a politician to be seen as the aggressor in the culture wars is the quickest way to lose them,” the longtime veteran of conservative politics wrote. “That is something Rick Santorum should bear in mind as this race moves forward.”

Triangle Man said...

And where are the posts condemning Obama sitting in a "church" where the "Reverend" said the government deliberately infected blacks with HIV and God Damn America!

This is about what Santorum said, not what he listened to someone else say. I read what you post Jay, but what matters is not that I have read it but what I think about it.

Darrell said...

Yeah, but who brought this up NOW? Santorum? No. Santorum is talking about jobs and the economy. And he answers any question put to him in an open and honest manner. The speech in question was from 2008 when he was no longer a politician, having lost his last election in November 2006.

If you want your politicians to mince their words, obfuscate, and avoid sensitive subjects, vote for some other guy. We get the Hell we deserve.

Jay said...


AWOOOGAH!!! Conservatives Start To Sound The Alarm Over Rick Santorum’s Extremism


And your link to the left wing blog has "proof" consisting of a Romeny campaign person and Newt Gingrich.

You are not that bright and easily misled.

phx said...

We get the Hell we deserve.

Will we get the Hell Santorum thinks we deserve?

Jay said...

Triangle Man said...

This is about what Santorum said, not what he listened to someone else say. I read what you post Jay, but what matters is not that I have read it but what I think about it.


Great.

Did Santorum say this on the campaign trail?
No.

And what did Obama think of "Reverend" Wright?

Gee, he only listed to it for 20 years. Must have been a-ok.

Jay said...

I read what you post Jay, but what matters is not that I have read it but what I think about it.


Alternatively,
If I were in a public forum and you heard me speak and kept coming back to hear me speak for 20 years, one might get the impression you liked what I was saying.

victoria said...

If they can dig up old speeches by Obama and old speeches of his ministers, they can dig up nut job speeches by Santorum. He's not just a religious fanatic, he is paranoid.

Oh, jay, there are plenty of posts condemning Obama and his "Reverend".

Vicki

Darrell said...

The man in the cocked hat says he need to tone it down.

What? Do you have a time machine? How can he tone down something he said in 2008? Keep pushing your stupid talking points, though.

Do you have Captchas that Andy can't solve?

Triangle Man said...

Santorum is like Buchanan was in 1996. I imagine he is useful for corralling the social conservatives along the path to the Convention and at some point the big money will make sure that Romney is the candidate.

Triangle Man said...

Alternatively,
If I were in a public forum and you heard me speak and kept coming back to hear me speak for 20 years, one might get the impression you liked what I was saying.


Drawing that kind of inference would lead you astray if I had other good reasons to be there. Is there a Five Guys nearby?

Ann Althouse said...

"How can we be sure that you are not?"

Would I put the possibility right in front of you?

Bender said...

Let's see --

Santorum was speaking -- not at some campaign event or even some political event, as is deceptively implied here -- but at a rather seriously overt Catholic university, Ave Maria University in Florida.

And the substance of his remarks are fairly standard stuff in Catholicism. Just as one might say "God bless America," one might also take note the corrolary of that. Catholics are very much aware that evil exists in the world and that mankind has been tempted by the Evil One ever since that very day when God first said to man, "remember you are dust and unto dust you shall return."

Not only is this the stuff of standard prayer in the Our Father (Lord's Prayer), but also in the prayer to St. Michael (which admittedly is not said as often as it used to be) -- "Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host - by the Divine Power of God - cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits, who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls."

Rather standard stuff for one Catholic to be talking to a group of Catholics about in a speech that is intended to be about faith.

And it is also rather standard stuff for people to laugh and snark and snicker at such things. But then again, it is quite acceptable to hold anything concerning the faith up to derision and contempt.

Darrell said...

How come all of Rev. Wright's hate speeches haven't come out by now? There were hundreds of DVDs for sale, and I'm pretty sure there are a lot worse examples than "Goddamn America" and "Chickens coming home to roost." Now they are not Obama's words but he seemed to agree with them when he sat there and smiled and continued his friendship with Wright.

Andy R. said...

Santorum is like Buchanan was in 1996. I imagine he is useful for corralling the social conservatives along the path to the Convention and at some point the big money will make sure that Romney is the candidate.

Only if the rubes don't catch on to how the Republicans party thinks about them and uses them.

victoria said...

Nice Bender. I was born and raised a Catholic, and had my daughter educated in a catholic school. Those comments are not standard for most mainstream Catholics today. Those are the rantings of super conservative right wing Catholics. That they were from a speech at Ave Maria is par for their course.

He is a nut job. Especially with those comments about amnio syntesis. Please

Vicki

Methadras said...

Andy R. said...

Dude is crazy. But since Republicans dislike Romney and think he will lose against Obama, they are in a bit of a pickle.


Actually you and your kind are the batshit nutjobs on this planet. This was a 2008 speech at the ave maria catholic school. He's a catholic. Because in your case, to much penis is pushing your brain in ways that make you dumber than normal. Under what context do you think giving a speech in 2008 like this in a catholic university in Florida is crazy?

D.D. Driver said...

If Santorum is correct, isn't this the biggest issue facing America? What good is full employment if we are all under the hoof of the Prince of Darkness. Why are we worried about Ahmadinejad?

This just confirms my belief that we need a cabinet-level Department of Ghostbusting.

I would like to see the federal DOG in a final showdown between good and evil on Newt's moonbase by the year 2020.

Darrell said...

A reply by Santorum in an
interview by Greta Van Susteren on 2/21/2012.

The hypocrisy in this case, I think, is pretty obvious and we’re going to stand up and articulate what the truth is, which is, in this case, as in many cases, my personal feelings and personal moral judgments are not those that are going to be reflected in public law, nor should they all the time. Not everything that is immoral in this country should be illegal or should be within the governance of the federal or state government, or any government. (about the 5:00 mark)
http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/video/gop-presidential-candidate-rick-santorum-on-the-record-7/

Darrell said...

Satan has a church and it is what we call the Left.

Andy and Victoria in Pasadena are members in good standing.

Bender said...

You know, about this religious nut job Santorum, in addition to this speech on faith that he gave to a religious group, there is a pretty reliable rumor out there that each week he goes to some secret meeting where he and the others engage in some kind of sick and twisted faux cannibalism ceremony, where his -- get this, ha, ha -- his "god" is a piece of bread!

And some want this wack job to be president??

YoungHegelian said...

I know that baiting Santorum is red meat to liberals, and so, it will continue unabated. That doesn't stop it from being politically a bad idea for Democrats. Here's why:

Catholics, unlike most other American faiths, are evenly split between Ds & Rs. There are a bunch of Democratic Catholic politicians.

Santorum is basically a hard-core believing Catholic. What he believes is what the Church teaches. He's just more vocal about it than is politically common.

So, when people, like our dear Hatman here, attack the Church's teachings publicly, they force liberal Catholic politicians to have to choose sides, a process that ends with either the Catholics or the secular liberals pissed off. Not good for the Democrats, who need every Catholic vote they can get.

Secular liberals hate Catholicism. We know that. Trumpeting it too loudly before a big election is political suicide.

Original Mike said...

"Would I put the possibility right in front of you?"

Seems like it's exactly what Satan would do. Satan's devious.

Bender said...

And then there is Saintorum's promotion of incest! About how we ought to be brothers and sisters who love each other.

Sick bastard. And he wants to impose his theocracy on us??

ricpic said...

Tactically a bad move to speak of good and evil in a political contest. What Santorum could say, which would be more plausible and less likely to evoke the ridicule of the Althouses of this world, is that his opponent is governing not only against the will of the people but against human nature itself. Since leftists don't believe there is any such thing as human nature, only a blank slate on which to imprint their agenda, and Santorum believes there is a God given human nature, that could be the basis of an enlightening debate.

Original Mike said...

He's also got a sense of humor.

edutcher said...

I'd like to say Ann and I think alike, but clearly she's a lot smarter.

Actually, though, the Church Lady thing had occurred to me as the best metaphor of Santorum's approach. The better way to go at it, however, is the Bing Crosby approach from the song, "Swinging On A Star" - point up how much happier, better people can be if they try it the accepted way.

Andy R. said...

Dude is crazy. But since Republicans dislike Romney and think he will lose against Obama, they are in a bit of a pickle.

Hatman will be crushed to find out Santorum's peaked already. Watch the polls this weekend.

victoria said...

Nice Bender. I was born and raised a Catholic, and had my daughter educated in a catholic school. Those comments are not standard for most mainstream Catholics today. Those are the rantings of super conservative right wing Catholics.

Of course, anyone who disagrees with little Vicki is "super conservative right wing".

Those "mainstream" Catholics she talks about are also known as cafeteria Catholics because they like to pick and choose from the Church's teachings what, if anything, they want to obey.

MadisonMan said...

The Pennsylvania native in me found this article interesting.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Those are the rantings of super conservative right wing Catholics..."

Interesting. Yet you cheerfully voted for the guy who sat in a radical church for 20 years listening to conspiracy theory sermons and how God should damn America.

I'm certain your progressive mind is unable to comprehend the irony.

Rusty said...

garage mahal said...
Bu bu but what about ______ ??!!





Said the king of moral relativism.


If you and Andy are the examples of the arguments the left has to offer, you're in big trouble.

YoungHegelian said...

@MadisonMan,

Familiarity in the political world always breeds contempt.

Does anyone think that Obama's Democratic Senate colleagues thought he was presidential material?

Notice that these guys in Pa. know every one of Santorum's foibles, but it's not like the Pa. Repubs went and interviewed everyone who worked with Romney in MA for their opinions. I wonder why?

Andy R. said...

That doesn't stop it from being politically a bad idea for Democrats.

Yeah, it might be politically disadvantageous to say that anyone who believes Satan is a sentient being is dumb enough or crazy enough to believe in a fairy tale.

Oops.

YoungHegelian said...

@Andy,

You know, Andy, you just might want to share your beliefs on the stupidity on the Christian faith with the black community, who vote in 90+ per cent for the Democrats. And, yes, they believe in Satan.

White Democrats believe that their guys get into office without the theocratic vote. That's because, in spite of their protestations to the contrary, white democrats don't understand jack-shit about black people.

I Callahan said...

Yeah, it might be politically disadvantageous to say that anyone who believes Satan is a sentient being is dumb enough or crazy enough to believe in a fairy tale.

You do understand that you are in the minority with that belief, don't you?

victoria said...

Cafeteria Catholic. Guilty.
So what?

Vicki from Pasadena

Christopher in MA said...

A "fairy tale," Satan is. As opposed to that solid, proven, scientific global warming cult, of course.

Trust me, Hat, you're just as religious as any Godfearing Christian. It's merely that your scriptures are simply the solipsistic mutterings of the self-obsessed who can't see beyond his own animal nature.

Christopher in MA said...

"Cafeteria Catholic. Guilty. So what?"

So you're not a Catholic. Simple as that.

phx said...

Satan's not really a fairy tale. He's a metaphor.

garage mahal said...

Cafeteria Catholic. Guilty.


Aren't they all?

Chuck66 said...

Subsitute Wisconsin and change Satan to Koch Brothers and he is saying the same thing almost all Wisconsin Democrats are saying.

T J Sawyer said...

If this doesn't get Santorum defeated and our of the race, then the Left and the Media may have to start a debate on Transubstantiation to prove he's crazy.

And they will.

D.D. Driver said...

"Satan's not really a fairy tale. He's a metaphor."

In some respects, he is like El Guapo.

"In a way, all of us has an El Guapo to face. For some, shyness might be their El Guapo. For others, a lack of education might be their El Guapo. For us, El Guapo is a big, dangerous man who wants to kill us. But as sure as my name is Lucky Day, the people of Santa Poco can conquer their own personal El Guapo, who also happens to be *the actual* El Guapo! "

phx said...

To imagine Satan sitting in his war room with his generals plotting ways to bring down America is childish, IMO. That's not what morality is about. I can respect the "struggle between good and evil" but not so much if that's how you think of it.

Chip S. said...

I am not a religious person, and I am not (yet) a Santorum supporter. But the more that he is the object of smug ridicule for his moral and religious beliefs, the more it seems to me that maybe this is a debate worth having.

The worldview shared by the Andy R's of the nation is that we are not up to the challenge of individual freedom and responsibility. We need the government to provide for our retirement because we lack adequate foresight. We need the government to determine our health-care choices because we are incapable of choosing among various options wisely, or at all. We even need the government to require that third parties buy contraceptives for us!

Santorum believes none of this. I'm beginning to think that this is why he is perceived as dangerous.

YoungHegelian said...

Okay, fellow Mackerel-snappers, let's remember to take some time out from the fray here to get ourselves smeared on today, Ash Wednesday.

Or, at least listen to this motet for the day by Cristobal de Morales

The score is here

Don said...

Satan is real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czLceBSD7Cc

Jay said...

victoria said...

Oh, jay, there are plenty of posts condemning Obama and his "Reverend".


I'd love to see a link to one by Ann Althouse in full mock mode of Obama's religion.

I really would.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...
Dude is crazy.


But men who have sex with other men, are like totally normal.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

It could be way worse. Consider the dislexic devil worshipper.

The poor schlub sold his soul to Santa.

phx said...

Beautiful YoungHegelian.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... But the more that he is the object of smug ridicule for his moral and religious beliefs, the more it seems to me that maybe this is a debate worth having..."

Well I think its because he holds the wrong moral and religious beliefs. Some religions are not subject to ridicule.

YoungHegelian said...

@don,

The story behind that album cover is that the Louvin Brothers took that photo in a limestone quarry in central Alabama with a cutout of Satan, and burning tires for the fire.

The problem is, when you heat up limestone, it explodes. So that look of fear on their faces comes more from flying limestone shrapnel than Satan.

Unknown said...

Aren't you missing the more interesting aspect - Drudge is fully armed against Santorum.

Look at the Drudgetaposition here:
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2012/02/21/20120221_235749.htm

Santorum in the center, arms out, Hillary down the left, arms up, Hugo Chavez down center, hands out. Is the establishment is getting a bit nervous about Santorum?

Kirby Olson said...

He was on BookTV last night from an original appearance in 2005. He talked about the family, and some other issues, and I thought: where's he been: he's the only candidate that has made any sense at all so far.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... The worldview shared by the Andy R's of the nation is that we are not up to the challenge of individual freedom and responsibility..."

Sure. This is the textbook definition of contemporary liberalism. It takes a village and all that. And to a certain extent they're right. There is a segment of every population that is really too stupid to survive without a social safety net.

Now a classical liberal would try to make that net as small as possible but contemporary liberals want to extend that dependency as wide as possible because having dependents is power. Individualism is the biggest threat to liberals because those people have no use for them.

On the other hand liberals need the self reliant, productive independents as the cash cow to support their power base.

Happy Warrior said...

From a Christian theological perspective, Satan (real or metaphorical -- you choose; but note that some absurd number of Americans believe in angels and 'Satan and his minions' as the saying goes are fallen angels) received power to rule the earth at the Fall; which Christ won back on the Cross but we are now in a working out of that victory. What Santorum said, is not at all outside of Christian doctrine.

Darrell said...

Lefties. Assholes.

Aren't they all?

n.n said...

No. The so-called "social" issues that he remarks on are actually derivative of the two objective orders in our world: natural (i.e. evolutionary) and enlightened (i.e. conscious). The first is principally concerned with procreation and evolutionary fitness. The second is axiomatic and is the justification for assigning individual dignity to individual humans. The goal is to identify and promote a reasonable compromise between the two known orders.

This is only "religious" in the sense that there exists a correlation between the two known orders and the principles espoused by the faith embraced by Christianity and similar religions. There is no conflict between the two perceptions of reality. In fact, the religious faith is principally concerned with judgment in the post-mortem, and is entirely compatible with the objective faith (i.e. constrained to a limited frame of reference).

The source of corruption in this world, that which could essentially be described as "evil", is dreams of instant physical, material, and ego instant gratification, principally through redistributive and retributive change, but also through fraudulent and opportunistic exploitation, in a world of resources with limited availability and accessibility. It is people and cooperatives that denigrate individual dignity and devalue human life that sponsor this progressive corruption of individuals, society, and humanity.

traditionalguy said...

Saying over and over that Satan does not exist is one way to deal with the personal evil that is seldom encountered in our Judeo-Christian communities, mainly because people here do not seek him out(Except maybe for the popular hero, Harry Potter.)

But don't tell Africans or Hatians that a personal evil does not exist or they will laugh at you. In those places most people still go to Witch Doctors to get help from Satan by paying for curses on others or, to break the curses others sought out from his priest.


I do agree that the best strategy is to ignore Satan, since he usually uses false flag operations here.

Christians were warned by Red Letter scripture not to fall for such deceptions from the Father of Lies, and that includes never attacking people, because our enemy is not flesh and blood.

Kirk Parker said...

"I think Satan is the guy writing the word verifications."

OriginalMike FTW!

And what, no hat tip for C. S. Lewis? He would, among other things, help us understand why this:

"Would I put the possibility right in front of you? "

is a completely un-reassuring answer to the question:

"How can we be sure that you are not?"

n.n said...

Hoosier Daddy:

The proliferation of classical liberalism was the renaissance of individual dignity. Its contemporary doppelganger and its "progressive" variant have demonstrated an enduring distrust of individuals, their motives, and ability to self-moderate their behavior (the prerequisite for liberty). The "liberal" and "progressive" are predisposed to defer to alphas (or mortal gods) in order to realize their dreams of instant gratification. They prefer involuntary exploitation because they distrust other people and seek to marginalize their influence while elevating their own.

Original Mike said...

The "blob" in the word verifications have gone away. Apparently, only the robots could handle that.

Titus said...

I don't mind Santorum. At least he is authentic and real..unlike Romney.

I don't agree with Santorum but he is honest about his views...unlike Romney.

Just Lurking said...

"On the other hand liberals need the self reliant, productive independents as the cash cow to support their power base."

And this independent voter, and her husband, are more disturbed by today's so-called liberals who cannot abide the existence of people they disagree with, than by the fact that Catholics and Mormons believe in things that we do not.

karrde said...

@All and Sundry,

if you assume that diatribes against the Devil are primarily a White-Religious-and-Conservative thing, I encourage you to visit a Black church.

@Ann,
"How can we be sure that you are not [the Devil]?"

Would I put the possibility right in front of you?


I will mention that, according to C.S. Lewis, the smartest thing the Devil ever did was to convince humans that he didn't exist.

(This can be found in The Screwtape Letters, which is one of Lewis' shortest books.)

Not that I believe you to be the Devil. For one thing, if the Evil One manifested himself in this world, he would "seem fairer and feel fouler" than you. (To quote a character from one of JRR Tolkien's works.)

Darrell said...

Anyone who uses "sentient" when they really mean "sapient," should hang out with their fellow sentients like slugs and amoebas.

Saint Croix said...

The secular term for Satan is evil.

My understanding of the concept is that Satan is an angel with free will.

So I take it to mean that we all have free will, and we can all be tempted to do evil--to follow our own selfish desires and do things we know are wrong.

One of my favorite books is The Screwtape Letters. It's an amazing read, I think.

C.S. Lewis talks about one of the great successes of the devil is to get everybody to picture him in red tights with a pitchfork.

I have to admit Santorum embarrassed me a little. We don't talk about Satan in my church.

Liberals are more inclined to mock and belittle the existence of Satan. It's kind of similar to the liberal obliviousness to evil in our world, and to the liberal assumption that utopia is attainable.

If Santorum said "right-wingers" instead of "Satan," liberals would vote for him.

As a matter of fact, I heard just the other day that the Speaker of the House is a demon.

As Johnny Carson used to say, "I did not know that."

machine said...

Santorum lectures about Satan but he proposes that using dogs to terrorize prisoners; stripping detainees naked and hooding them; freezing prisoners to near-death and reviving them and repeating the hypothermia; contorting prisoners into stress positions that create unbearable pain in the muscles and joints; cramming prisoners into upright coffins in painful positions with minimal air; near-drowning, on a waterboard, of human beings—in one case 183 times—even after they have cooperated with interrogators...is ok.

He's yours...

bgates said...

I read what you post Jay, but what matters is not that I have read it but what I think about it.

If you wrote Jay checks in the mid-five figures and got the title of your first book from one of his comments, what could we conclude you think about his posts?

wv 'titttea'. Knock it off, Titus.

traditionalguy said...

Our friend Titus is back.

And he is still warning us about Romney for only saying the latest lines that people want to hear.

If there is one lesson life has taught me many times over, it is that I can deal with a truth teller, no matter how mistaken he may sometimes be, but I cannot deal with a deceiver.

Darcy said...

It's all fun and games until somebody goes to Hell.

phx said...

@Darrell aren't you a sentient being?

Rusty said...

Andy R. said,
"Yeah, it might be politically disadvantageous to say that anyone who believes Satan is a sentient being is dumb enough or crazy enough to believe in a fairy tale."


Like socialism.

The evil that existed and still exists isn't so much the single man responsible for millions of deaths, but the evil that exists in the countless number of people who would excuse him.

YoungHegelian said...

@machine,

And what you describe has stopped under Obama? Leon Pannetta has come out at least once in favor of "enhanced interrogation".

In any case, let's pretend we don't do that anymore. We don't take prisoners at all. We blow them and their entourages into pieces. And, of course, our terrorists foes are nice enough not to travel with any wives or children, right?

Does your pretty little conscience feel better now?

Original Mike said...

"And this independent voter, and her husband, are more disturbed by today's so-called liberals who cannot abide the existence of people they disagree with, than by the fact that Catholics and Mormons believe in things that we do not."

No kidding. I'm an atheist, but I'll take the religous over AndyR any day.

Chip S. said...

I wonder how machine feels about the Obama policy of replacing enhanced interrogation with missile strikes.

Oh, the humaneness!

Darrell said...

Yes I am. But what matters is that I am a sapient being with self-awareness and a hatful of other qualities beyond just "feeling" and responding to stimuli.

That Star Trek NG writer who wrote the episode even said that "sentient" was a placeholder for "sapient"--a word hhe could not think of when he was writing the episode quickly, away from his thesaurus. Patrick Stewart's three-sylable pronunciation of "sentient" made the director keep that take, saying that he didn't really care what the right word was.

chickenlittle said...

machine cranked out:
Santorum lectures about Satan but he proposes that using dogs to terrorize prisoners; stripping detainees naked and hooding them; freezing prisoners to near-death and reviving them and repeating the hypothermia; contorting prisoners into stress positions that create unbearable pain in the muscles and joints; cramming prisoners into upright coffins in painful positions with minimal air; near-drowning, on a waterboard, of human beings—in one case 183 times—even after they have cooperated with interrogators...is ok.

I missed that sermon of Santorum's. Got link?

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

garage mahal said...
Bu bu but what about ______ ??!!


Ok, that was very funny.

phx said...

But what matters is that I am a sapient being with self-awareness

We'll have to take your word for the self-aware part.

Darrell said...

However, I do know you are like a slug, phx, only sentient.

D.D. Driver said...

"The worldview shared by the Andy R's of the nation is that we are not up to the challenge of individual freedom and responsibility. We need the government to ...

Santorum believes none of this. I'm beginning to think that this is why he is perceived as dangerous."

Chip: If you really believe in "individual liberty," Santorum is so not your guy. He has explicitly denounced the individual freedom as a societal ideal.

"This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."

The only difference between Santorum and Obama is that they want the government to regulate different things. THAT is why he is viewed as dangerous.

Chip S. said...

No, a lack of self-awareness is easy to spot.

phx said...

"This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."

Will the real Republican Party please stand up?

I think in this case Rick at least puts his finger on the schism of the right today. That radical individualism is a very different conception of conservatism than Santorum's scriptural interpretation.

I think they're both inadequate but it seems to me that's the discussion that's really worth having, that's the culture war that's worth engaging in.

Saint Croix said...

It's all fun and games until somebody goes to Hell.

LOL. There's a Time magazine on my parents' coffee table that asks, "What If There Is No Hell?" I always think, cripes, what if there is?

Chip S. said...

@DDDriver, If I find any reason to believe that Santorum wants to enforce the full range of his moral views through legislation or executive order, I'll be strongly opposed.

I do believe strongly in individual freedom, but I do not believe that freedom entails indifference to the moral sphere. So I don't object to a candidate simply b/c he or she acknowledges that. In the particular case of Santorum, I don't know the full context of the quote you've posted. It may have been something relatively harmless, such as public displays of Christmas decorations, or he may have been advocating the mandatory teaching of Catholic doctrine in public schools. Specifics matter.

Althouse has in the past dismissed arguments about the superiority of private charity to a welfare state as a mere "conservative meme," but I happen to think it is an essential point in the overall debate. That means that morality, ethics, and liberty aren't easily separable.

yashu said...

Santorum creeps me the eff out and I really, really, really hope he doesn't get the GOP nomination. But not because of this quote.

Plenty of other truly cringeworthy Santorum quotes, which I personally find objectionable. Especially coming from someone who seeks to be POTUS.

E.g. on the topics of individual freedom and libertarianism (he's not a fan). Or Santorum's predominant, even obsessive focus, throughout his public and political career, on topics of sexual morality-- e.g. the moral evils of contraception and sodomy-- as "important public policy" issues, and his stated intention to be the first President ever to "talk about" these things-- in his role *as President*.

The only time I want to hear the word "sodomy" coming from a POTUS is if he's caught singing along to the Hair soundtrack.

Of course, much of the liberal mocking of Santorum's faith is disgusting. But being the object of unfair liberal mockery is not by itself a qualification for the presidency.

(Conservatives sometimes tend to overvalue this-- being the object of liberal ridicule-- as if that by itself were proof of intrinsic virtue and merit. Cf. the apotheosis of Palin. Don't get me wrong, this is a very human and understandable and in a way commendable reaction. But I wouldn't make that my primary criterion in picking a POTUS nominee.)

And NB: one may very well mock or object to Santorum's statements and his very *particular* brand of social conservatism, characteristic of Santorum and Santorum alone-- especially insofar as he is a candidate for *POTUS*-- without mocking or objecting to religion or social conservatism themselves or as a whole.

Charging all of Santorum's critics and detractors with anti-religious bigotry makes only a bit more sense than charging all of Obama's critics and detractors with racism. Which is to say, not much sense at all.

Santorum's social conservatism is nothing like GWB's, for example. I was very fond of GWB and felt no qualms whatsoever about his faith (in fact, I largely considered this to be a positive quality of GWB's). I can't say the same about Santorum.

G Joubert said...

Santorum's theological beliefs comport far more with the 43 presidents preceding Obama than does Obama's. But, tell you what, let's pretend that they don't. The liberal way.

chickenlittle said...

yashu wrote: Cf. the apotheosis of Palin.

That's so odd because if someone were to ask me why I admired Palin I'd say it's because she's down to earth.

Of course you and Cedarford would mock that view everytime.

chickenlittle said...

Althouse hinted the other day that she thought Obama was an atheist right? I believed her. So he clearly doesn't believe in good and evil. That sets both Romney and Santorum at odds with Obama.

I'm still hoping for a blend of Romney's corporate pragmatism with Santorum's "take the fight to Obama."

Darcy said...

@Saint Croix

There's the rub! ;-)

paul a'barge said...

ADDED: "... taking on the forces around his world..." Is that a typo or did he say "his"? And if he said "his," who is he?

Do some reading in Christian texts. You'll find that our natural world is regularly described as belonging to Satan.

So, the his is not a [sic] at all.

yashu said...

We're not (yet) choosing between Santorum and Obama. If it gets to that, we'll get to that. We're choosing among the GOP primary candidates. You don't have to convince me that Obama (especially a second term of Obama) is or would be worse than Santorum.

Of course, IMO, to pick Santorum is to guarantee Obama's re-election. But I'm trying to avoid "electability" arguments, which distract from the more fundamental point. Leaving aside whether Santorum is electable; IMO he's just not qualified to be POTUS.

Obama wasn't qualified either, you say? The deuce you say!

My response: yes, exactly. Just so. Why in the world would I (or the general electorate) want another POTUS as patently inexperienced and unqualified for the Presidency as Obama was in 2008?

Chip S. said...

@yashu--Your points are all well-taken, but I join chickenlittle's dissent from your take on Palin.

I think you're overlooking one essential aspect to the choice among candidates: credibility. Zealots have an easy time convincing people of the sincerity of their views; pragmatists do not. Palin's appeal was in large part due to conservatives' absolute faith in her sincerity.

The question that is most critical to my choice of candidate is simply this: Who will be most dedicated to--and most effective in achieving--the repeal of Obamacare and the reform of entitlement programs?

If Romney could convince voters that he was the answer to both parts of that question, then I think he would win both the nomination and the general election handily. But clearly he hasn't managed to do that--yet.

Erik Robert Nelson said...

This is an interesting inkblot test going on here. Let's just say Obama (professed Christian that he is) was cornered in an interview and asked if he believed (as most Christians in the world do) in a personified evil force in the world. Anyone who thinks he'd say "no" outright is fooling themselves. He'd either triangulate (ie., not answer the question, the most likely answer), or offer a qualified "yes."

What distinguishes Santorum and Obama on this is not the answer. It's that Obama's supporters would immediately think he's lying for political gain--and they wouldn't care at all that he did so. Santorum's supporters (of which I''m not one) know he's telling the truth--and they don't care.

It's the same on any number of issues. You can't tell me that it's a good thing that so many are comfortable thinking their candidate is lying and not care. However odd you may find Santorum's religion, this situation reveals a very deep sickness in our politics. It may be old rot, but it's still rot.

Original Mike said...

"Althouse hinted the other day that she thought Obama was an atheist right? I believed her. So he clearly doesn't believe in good and evil."

Atheists can believe in good and evil. I do.

Chip S. said...

I read it as "God and devil."

yashu said...

That's so odd because if someone were to ask me why I admired Palin I'd say it's because she's down to earth.

Of course you and Cedarford would mock that view everytime.


There's a lot about Palin that is admirable. And I didn't say anything negative or mocking about *her* in my comment. My point was that, after the patently unfair MSM/ liberal treatment she received, many of her supporters developed a counter-overreaction (or over-counterreaction?), IMO. So even the mildest criticism of Palin is considered anathema. And IMO she has been apotheosized by many (not all, but a number) of her supporters. Who are as fervent about her as many Obamaphiles were about Obama.

I'm not saying Palin herself is responsible for that. Let's say I'm agnostic on that point.

Erik Robert Nelson said...

"So even the mildest criticism of Palin is considered anathema."

The problem being that there hasn't been much criticism in the media of Palin that qualifies as merely "mild." The media has a tendency to turn every criticism of her up to eleven, partly because she's such a ratings draw.

walter said...

Obama was the most recent example of blurring policy and religion. The my brother's keeper/fair share bit. By the way, how is his brother? How is pastor Wright?

But this is all predictable distraction from the economy and spiraling debt. Look! He said Satan!

Dante said...

Oh! Feminine rhyme!

"satanorum, can, we, ignore, im"

Here is my addition:

A bit of Mitt Romney
A piece of shit on me.

Ann Althouse said...

Meade made that rhyme.

yashu said...

ERN, that is true, absolutely. Which is why the reaction-- the admiration, affection, and loyalty Palin has garnered from many conservatives-- is so understandable. But the result is that everything about Palin-- both con and pro-- is turned up to eleven.

Chip S. said...

Infernal.

Chip S. said...

Dante's doggerel, that is.

chickenlittle said...

I thought I'd coin it but the word bloggerel has been around.

yashu said...

Chip @2:08, I agree that's the sticking point for many conservatives toward Romney. Romney has convinced *me* he's serious about repealing Obamacare. He states this unequivocally in every speech. But others are not yet convinced.

Romneycare's the rub. I don't have a problem separating Obamacare and Romneycare (especially given how "Romneycare" actually came about, in the context of MA politics and especially a MA legislature intent on implementing an insurance mandate, irrespective of Romney-- and a *much* worse one if Romney hadn't intervened).

States rights are an important principle for me: which is a big part of why Obamacare is such an abomination, and why Romneycare (though I consider it a bad, badly flawed thing) is not such an object of outrage for me. (I might feel differently if I lived in MA.)

But many conservatives just won't be appeased unless and until Romney offers a full-throated denunciation of Romneycare. Why not disavow it by e.g. blaming the MA legislature for it? That would seem like the politically smart thing to do at this point.

I speculate that Romney's refusal to do so has nothing to do with an ideological or political attachment to the idea of health insurance mandates, but rather something like an ex-governor's etiquette/ honor/ loyalty to the state he governed. To diss Romneycare (i.e. MA health care) would be in a way to diss MA, the citizens of MA-- the majority of whom wanted and still want such a system for themselves. In a way it would be to say that the citizens of MA are clueless, misguided, and don't know what's good for them. (Cf. Obama's attitude toward American citizens.)

It's like a guy who's discreet and won't publicly diss his ex-wife because, after all, she's the mother of his children. Doesn't mean the guy is bound to make the same mistakes if/ when he marries again-- especially when those mistakes were largely due to the first wife and not him.

I know, this is a charitable interpretation, which I come up with only because I happen to like Romney (more than the other candidates, to be the nominee).

Michael Haz said...

"Satanorum" - Really? Kind of like calling Scott Walker "Hitler", isn't it? Childish.

Satan is the face and name put on evil. Why would anyone not believe that evil is present in the world?

Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-Il, Adolph Hitler, Ho Chi Minh, the mullahs of Iran, and similar others were (or are) evil. They murdered millions of their own people.

Many, many Christians and Jews believe abortion is evil. It kills children.

The Islamists who stone or flog women to death are evil aren't they? Aren't they?

If you can't see evil, can't get past snarking about a conservative speaking openly about Satan and evil, you are blind to reality.

phx said...

"Satanorum" - Really? Kind of like calling Scott Walker "Hitler", isn't it? Childish.

One of the Catholics on this thread referred to him as "Saintorum" so I guess it evens out.

And Michael, you can't tell the difference between recognizing evil in the world and believing that it is caused by a supernatural devil? C'mon, I know you can.

The Crack Emcee said...

"This is a spiritual war."

Shit, I've been saying this for years. But I'm just an atheist watching it.

It's funny how religious talk flusters people, who spend most of the year pooh-poohing religious belief, like they just woke up in a religious country.

He said Satan!

Big whoop. Many of you have no ethics.

That bothers me more,...

Chip Ahoy said...

The error of the premise is at the failure to distinguish between Satan and Beelzebub. They are not combined as summary of planetary evil. Satan is a local universe intelligence. Beelzebub is a planetary personality.

Lucifer
Satan
Caligastia
Abaddon
Daligastia
Beelzebub

If this Santorum fellow you guys found does not do any better at sorting these celestial and planetary intelligences then I will not be able to pay him any attention. He'll have no devilish Satan clarification to offer. He must attack directly the tenets of the Lucifer Manifesto and show how its adherents pursue a rebellion without knowing even as that rebellion is already isolated and withers, to show that he knows what he's on about, but he doesn't, and he won't because he isn't. If Republicans elect Santorum then I will not pay attention to any devil-related thing he says unless he goes in comic mode like the Church Lady.

Although the Church Lady is very funny character, so far, Santorum is not. In interviews, he sounds punch drunk to me. The guy is asked a simple question and you get all this swinging in the air string of answers without any naturally occurring space between them. Like he has to get it all out, and get it out fast, in every single flawlessly rapid staccato answer. I give him a go, I do try, but the arm reaches for the remote independently and sees to it the ears stay protected.

I wonder, for the likes of him, will it ever be possible to have a normal conversation after running a presidential campaign?

Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
walter said...

"The guy is asked a simple question and you get all this swinging in the air string of answers without any naturally occurring space between them. Like he has to get it all out, and get it out fast, in every single flawlessly rapid staccato answer."

Probably an attempt to fluster those parsing every statement for an extractable damning soundbite. But if he doesn't know Satan's proper place in the pantheon of evil, Lord knows he doesn't have prayer with the more pressing issues of the day.

Saint Croix said...

Palin's appeal was in large part due to conservatives' absolute faith in her sincerity.

I agreed with her on frickin' everything. But aside from that, she's funny. She has a populist appeal. The way she would talk to union voters and go after that vote. Her charm. Her persona. Her sex appeal. The way she could frame a debate and reduce an idea to a slogan. Death panels.

We couldn't get enough of her. She would just throw up some comment on facebook and the media would go crazy.

She's a natural.

Liberals were terrified of her. Absolutely frickin' terrified.

I do not get the sense that anybody on the left is terrified of Santorum. Laughing at him, yes. Terrified? No.

I was frankly shocked when she decided not to run, which I guess was family considerations.

She would have run away with this thng.

Andy R. said...

I do not get the sense that anybody on the left is terrified of Santorum. Laughing at him, yes. Terrified? No.

No we're not terrified of frothy mixture, yes we're laughing at him.

See also, Cain, Herman; Palin, Sarah; Perry, Rick; Bachmann, Michele, etc. etc.

chickenlittle said...

No we're not terrified of frothy mixture, yes we're laughing at him.

Typical savage retort. It needs to get better than that, Andy R.

Sabinal said...

I'm a social liberal myself, if we can ignore Obama's years as a member of a church whose minister condemned America openly and proudly (and it's ok), why can't conservatives listen to Santorum complain about America being condemned (and it's NOT ok)?

It's this double standard that gets Fox News more watchers and Rush more listeners; no one gets balance so they have to go to extremes and guess for themselves

el polacko said...

remember way, way back...say, about a month ago...when republicans were talking about lower taxes, smaller government, the national debt, individual liberty and other crazy things like that? thank goodness we've moved on to the really important stuff like condoms and satan ! go rick !

Rusty said...

Sabinal said...
I'm a social liberal myself, if we can ignore Obama's years as a member of a church whose minister condemned America openly and proudly (and it's ok), why can't conservatives listen to Santorum complain about America being condemned (and it's NOT ok)?


Doesn't bother me.

YoungHegelian said...

@el Polacko

Completely unfair slam at Santorum.

The discussion of Satan occurred at a lecture to a Catholic audience at a Catholic university in 2008 (or was it 2010?). Not on the campaign trail.

The only quote I could find on banning condoms was a question from an ABC News reporter on whether states had the right to ban contraceptives, which he thought they did. He didn't bring it up. The ABC News guy did.

The quote I found was on the social impact of contraceptives was from 2010, also not on the campaign trail.

Santorum has not brought any of this up on the trail. It has been resurrected by a compliant media, and a lie repeated either knowingly or unknowingly by you.

yashu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
YoungHegelian said...

If you'd like to hear a good reason why Republicans rally around Santorum's often harsh moral clarity, just take a listen to this from a show on the local NPR affiliate WAMU.

At around minute 5 to minute 6, you get to hear one of the ladies compare the moral seriousness of abortion to the moral weight of masturbation. And of course, the other four ladies guffaw heartily. Because, of course, conservatives are against abortion to oppress women, not because they think it's murder.

Ah, the philosophical profundity of NPR!

David R. Graham said...

"Would I put the possibility right in front of you?"

Aren't you a pedagogue?

YoungHegelian said...

Ooops! The link won't come out correctly. The discussion is minute 5 to 6 in the "Beauty Shop" segment.

Bender said...

"What If There Is No Hell?"

People might have a difference of belief as to the existence of Heaven, but even the most strident atheist and antitheist must necessarily admit to the existence of Hell. That is because Hell does not depend upon the existence of God.

"Hell" is, by definition, eternal separation from God (CCC 1035), while "Heaven" is to be one with and in God, who is Life itself (CCC 1025). Even if God does not exist, then it is necessarily impossible for one to be with Him after worldly death. And if you are not or cannot be with Him, then you are necessarily in Hell.

Bender said...

And while were on the subject, let's not forget the meaning of the name "Satan," which is from the Hebrew, meaning "the opposer" or "the adversary."

Are there any opposers or adversaries of God today?

The question pretty much answers itself, doesn't it? We've seen some of them here.

David said...

So in the lefty world . . . . .

1. There is a God (or at least if you profess belief in God it's ok, even if you might mean it.)

2. Keep as far away from the Christ thing as you can. Son of God, virgin birth, resurrection, that's all so very unscientific and fantastical.

3. If you must go to church, don't try to recruit others very hard. Too evangelical (and Mormon.)

4. Speaking of Mormons angels walking among us in the 21st century is totally wacko.

5. Black churches are exempt from any of the foregoing criticisms. (The blacks are such children, you see, that they really believe this stuff and its because they were and are and ever shall be oppressed and in need of government programs.)

6. All talk of the devil being incarnate is totally ridiculous and anyone who believes in such a thing is completely irrational except insofar as such beliefs extend to successful conservative capitalists and politicians.

7. Praise be, the government shall set you free.

Alan said...

So, Santorum says the Devil is out to thet the US of A. Tell me, what country isn't on Old Nick's hit list? Vanuatu?

But seriously folks...Santorum is on the same page with conservative/libertarian atheists more than most people realize. Conservatives and libertarians of all stripes share a lot of common ground regarding policy, and thus share a lot of common ground as to what constitutes evil. All those factions agree that the United States has the largest aggregate of freedom among all the world's nations, and is thus opposed by evil more than any other nation is. Santorum and atheists simply disagree on who evil's Commander-in-Chief happens to be.

Alan said...

That should read "out to get the US of A."

Damn, now I have to wade through Captcha again. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest the armpits of the person(s) who create those Captcha images.

Kirk Parker said...

"the person(s) who create those Captcha images"

Huh? I thought we already established that the Devil was behind the new captcha system

Alan said...

I bet when you say those Captcha phrases backwards you hear Led Zeppelin songs.

In other news...Satan has drones!

http://volokh.com/2012/02/21/drone-warfare-getting-out-of-hand/

Dante said...

Ann: Feminine Rhyme is rhyme of more than two syllables, and has nothing to do with your gender, or Meade's for that matter.