Tema: Opinions on Rick Santorum

Well? What opinion do you make of him? I'd particularly thank the ones from Annuit and Milesian, or from other americans that may care to join our forum (and I'm not making you an american Milesian, of course. Even if I could...). Nevertheless, everyone is surely welcome.

I'll open fire by stating my own opinion about the man: though very much catholic he may be, he's just another neocon compromised with the system and another champion of capitalism that, case he was to be elected president, would never do nothing to make America a more godly place to live and let the others live. Like Catholics, of course.

Am I wrong?

Here is the family tree of American neoconservatism:



The Neocons: An Illustrated Progression

To me, Santorum is not only a neocon but also another example of the failed Moral Majority that was founded and made famous by the late Jerry Fallwell. I don't care that he's Catholic, Catholicism is more palatable to me than Mormonism, but I do slightly care that he's just a rather transparent shill for the religiopolitical right in the U.S. The leadership of the Republican Party is pretty much little different than the leadership of the Democratic Party (i.e. American arm of international communism) as both are obsessed with the status-quo of liberal democracy (the fruit of the French Revolution).

The best thing that any politician could do to make the U.S. a more godly place would be to respect the particular ideas of the Founders, which was the idea that religious freedom exists so that the different denominations of Christianity can be practiced side-by-side without conflict, i.e. at the time of the country's founding you could, for example, find Quakers in Pennsylvania, Methodists in New York, Catholics (frequently Portuguese) in Massachuests, Puritans in Rhode Island, etc. The "wall" of separation that Jefferson mentioned, i.e. the separation of church and state, existed to prevent the favoring of one denomination over another in, I believe, the federal government.

Interesting topic!

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

The leadership of the Republican Party is pretty much little different than the leadership of the Democratic Party (i.e. American arm of international communism) as both are obsessed with the status-quo of liberal democracy (the fruit of the French Revolution).

Since you're not a monarchist or traditionalist, what other system of government do you stand for?


I may be naive, but I think Santorum is a sincere Catholic. His neo-con ultra-capitalist "tea-party" statements are a strategy to win in the Republican primaries. He's a grandson of an Italian coal miner and is proud of that. As a friend from Pennsylvania has told me, he appeals to Catholics, the "Rust Belt" States and the so called Reagan democrats. He supports manufacturers and the masonic establishment of the Republican Party doesn't like him.

Of course he's not perfect, but he strongly opposes abortion and stands for a cultural fight against promiscuity, contraceptives, secularism... That makes him a milion times better than most electable politicians in Europe.

Iniciado por Rodrigo

Since you're not a monarchist or traditionalist, what other system of government do you stand for?


I may be naive, but I think Santorum is a sincere Catholic. His neo-con ultra-capitalist "tea-party" statements are a strategy to win in the Republican primaries. He's a grandson of an italian coal miner and is proud of that. As one friend from Pennsylvania has told me, he appeals to Catholics, the "Rust Belt" States and the so called Reagan democrats. He supports manufacturers and the masonic establishment of the Republican Party doesn't like him.

Of course he's not perfect, but he stronly oposes abortion and stands for a cultural fight against promiscuity, contraceptives, secularism... That makes him a milion times better than most electable politicians in Europe.

In its classical, probably pre-Jacksonian sense.

Republicanism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Critics of the U.S. call it a liberal democracy, which is true now, but the non-American critics of the U.S. largely seem unable to distinguish between how we (used to) conceive of democracy and republicanism. Actual people in the U.S. who espouse this political ideology in its classic sense seem to be as rare as, say, Carlists are in Spain. American republicanism was a short-lived idea before it was infected by the democratic (i.e. Marxist) ideals in, say, the middle and latter parts of the 19th century. To me, commies love the word "democracy" for a reason.

Santorum, I don't doubt his faith but I'm extremely wary of politicians of either of the two major political parties. Mistrust politicians and government is no longer one of the virtues that is too overly stressed in my country.

Santorum seems to be a good man but that doesn't mean he'd be a good President, but this is just my own opinion of him.

Santorum can also use his religious beliefs only so far before he, say, upsets civil libertarians or non-Catholics (there're some Christian denominations in the U.S. who still don't like the Church for some reason or another). The Catholic voting bloc in the U.S. is large indeed but they all mostly vote Democrat (the Kennedys, Irish Catholics, were all big-time Democrats). These are your mainstream Catholics, the majority, and not the Catholic traditionalists who probably vote Republican or belong to some sort of state conservative party. Santorum has done well among Christian conservatives (mostly Protestant) and even among some Orthodox Jewish groups- vastly better than that posterboy of corruption Gingrich.

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

In its classical, probably pre-Jacksonian sense.
Republicanism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I really don't see a big difference between a liberal Party-System Democracy (not like the Swiss model) and your Constitutional Republic model. Both systems are based on a human Constitution that can be ammended or interpreted freely. Your Constitution gives queers the "right" to "marry" and mothers the "right" to kill their children. Why does your Constitution give such immoral rights to the citizens? Because it doesn't say otherwise. A political system founded not on a human Constitution but on Natural Law would never grant its subjects such immoral "rights".

Iniciado por Rodrigo

I really don't see a big difference between a liberal Party-System Democracy (not like the Swiss model) and your Constitutional Republic model. Both systems are based on a human Constitution that can be ammended or interpreted freely. Your Constitution gives queers the "right" to "marry" and mothers the "right" to kill their children. Why does your Constitution give such immoral rights to the citizens? Because it doesn't say otherwise. A political system founded not on a human Constitution but on Natural Law would never grant its subjects such immoral "rights".

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other," John Adams.

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other," John Adams.

Yes, but it does not define what morality and religiousity are. The only thing your Constitution does regarding religion is to grant all false religions and doctrines the right to spread their errors and lies. Your Constitution does not admit the truth of any Church doctrines, not even the truth of the Bible. It only acknowledges the "truth" of people's will.

Since many of the so called Christian (Protestant) mainstream Churches today say it's ok and perfectly moral for mothers to kill their children and for queers to marry or adopt children, how can you prove that your protestant or deistic masonic founding fathers didn't mean that kind of distorted and false concept of morality and religiousity?

Iniciado por Rodrigo

Yes, but it does not define what morality and religiousity are. The only thing your Constitution does regarding religion is to grant all false religions and doctrines the right to spread their errors and lies. Your Constitution does not admit the truth of any Church doctrines, not even the truth of the Bible. It only acknowledges the "truth" of people's will.

The emergence of the U.S. is a part of the overall story of English history and, given that most of the Founders were of Protestant origin, you're not going to find very much in the way of existential specificity in the Constitution. The Constitution is a political document and not a religious one, but a political document that, at the time, presupposed that the people of the country were of a religious nature.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.

A terrifying idea, this comment of Reagan's, but one that exists at the heart of the U.S. and to truly understand this you'd have to understand the history of the English (which does include the early U.S.): Anglo-Saxon tribal law, Rummymede, where King John was forced to acknowledge the rights of freemen, the law of the land, and so on in the Magna Carta; the codification of common law by King Alfred in his Domboc (which was influenced by the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament); the jurisprudence of the Anglo-Norman jurists, and so on up till the Age of Reason and men like John Locke and William Blackstone.

Since many of the so called Christian (Protestant) mainstream Churches today say it's ok and perfectly moral for mothers to kill their children and for queers to marry or adopt children, how can you prove that your protestant or deistic masonic founding fathers didn't mean that kind of distorted and false concept of morality and religiousity?

Purely immaterial as abortion, so-called gay marriage, and other unsavory social practices exist in many western countries. To offer a counter, gays can "marry" in Spain as of 2005 due to a ruling passed by the Cortes Generales whereas no such practice exists at the national level at the U.S. The socially conservative clergy and laity adamantly opposed this ruling in Spain, much as has happened in the U.S. wherever this problem has arisen.

SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) has largely remain disinterested in this problem, leaving it to the states to handle. Gay "marriage" has been consistently struck down by the voters, i.e. California Prop 8 (California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), but upheld by activist (progressive) judges. The will of the majority of voters is that gays cannot marry and that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is consistent with biblical religion, natural law, common sense, or whichever term you prefer.

There is no State Religion in the U.S. and there was never going to be a State Religion here. What sort of State Religion would you have us create, the sort of Progressive Christianity that emerged in Nazi Germany, when the popular religion was simply used as an arm of state terror and for indoctrinating the German citizens into the ideals of national socialism?

This is the potential slippery slope that politicians like Santorum walk upon when they begin to inject religious commentary into political speeches. Now, I will comment no more except on Mr. Santorum; the thread is going a bit off-topic.

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

Purely immaterial as abortion, so-called gay marriage, and other unsavory social practices exist in many western countries. To offer a counter, gays can "marry" in Spain as of 2005 due to a ruling passed by the Cortes Generales whereas no such practice exists at the national level at the U.S. The socially conservative clergy and laity adamantly opposed this ruling in Spain, much as has happened in the U.S. wherever this problem has arisen.

I never said that our current Constitution or our political system is better than yours, so what's the point? This is not a "Spain is better than anyone else" debate. In fact, I believe that you have better politicians than we do (such as Rick Santorum) and that there's more faith and catholic activism there than it is here. I can even say that I'm ashamed of most of my countrymen's values and political attitudes. However, your Supreme Court does recognize a constitutional right of mothers to kill their sons and daughters, and making it a State issue wouldn't be much better or less immoral.

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

here is no State Religion in the U.S. and there was never going to be a State Religion here. What sort of State Religion would you have us create, the sort of Progressive Christianity that emerged in Nazi Germany, when the popular religion was simply used as an arm of state terror and for indoctrinating the German citizens into the ideals of national socialism?

A traditional Catholic believes in what former Popes said, and they always said that Catholicism should be the State Religion. This has nothing to do with Nazi Germany. In fact, nazism, fascism, liberalism, republicanism, nationalism, communism, democracy have all a common origin, i.e. the American and French revolutions which ended up with the social order of the Christendom.

But you're right, this is off-topic, let's focus on Rick. Are you going to vote for someone else or you'll just not vote?

Rick Santorum is just another example of a so-called Catholic working for the system. He creates a campaign based on stands which are exactly the opposite of what he had been doing in all the years he was a politician before, and while he distracts the attention with some easy and emotional topics (abortion, gay marriage, etc), he completely and openly endorses the crazy neocon political agenda, which is absolutely unacceptable by a Catholic.

Ron Paul is, as a whole, a lot more acceptable by a Catholic than Santorum.

Iniciado por Donoso

Ron Paul is, as a whole, a lot more acceptable by a Catholic than Santorum.

I don't agree with that. Ron Paul believes that abortion should be dealt with at a State level whereas Santorum would ban it. Paul also believes that the morning after pill is just like any other contraceptive, thus he does not believe that life begins at conception. Paul is a libertarian. Apart from being the only one that is not pro-zionist, which is good, he has nothing to do with catholicism. Libertarianism is the most anticatholic idea ever.

Santorum stands for a cultural fight for the good principles, Paul stands for freedom above anything else.

Iniciado por Rodrigo

But you're right, this is off-topic, let's focus on Rick. Are you going to vote for someone else or you'll just not vote?

The points I made were just for comparative purposes and nothing more. Anyways, who am I going to vote for? I'm not really convinced by the moralistic platitudes of Santorum who, as Donoso points out, is just a career politician who is using his Catholicism, in part, to gain progress in the Republican nomination process. I think I'll pass on him. Ron Paul has appealed to me for years, and I did support him in 2008, but he's more or less never going to go all the way to the White House. There's also the fact that Paul tends to attract some unsavory followers: conspiracy theorists, neo-nazis, etc. This has turned me off a bit.

For a Catholic politician that I would consider voting for I'd like to mention Alan Keyes, who broke with the Republicans a while ago.

Alan Keyes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia