Those that have known me for a decent amount of time, both in my online life and in real life, know how much I detest spiritual haughtyness of any kind. Christ said: “Love one another, as I have loved you”, and He meant it, and although I’m just as fallible as the next human being, I try to live by that standard every day of my life.

Then along comes Rick Santorum. Now, granted, I’ll be the first person to admit, proudly, that he has every right to believe as he wishes, for himself and his family. He can have any opinion he wishes, when it comes to the state of religion in this country. I don’t even care about his ‘satan is coming for us’ opinion, because, again, it’s his, and he’s entitled to it.

But, he IS an official candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America, and although I realize he’s playing the role of ‘puppet-master’, pulling at the heart-strings of social conservatives everywhere, opinions specifically like this are best kept to himself, because, there are plenty of Protestants in this country, of which, I am a one:

“We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

Yeah…It’s GO TIME…
Who made this guy the arbiter of all things religious? Does he realize EVERY sect of Christianity (including HIS) has it’s share of (for lack of a better word) “back-sliders”? Does he further realize that it is NOT his job, nor his perogative, as an official candidate for the Presidency of the United States, to lambast ENTIRE sections of Christianity as he sees fit??!! Obama has done this, on occassion, in his own special way, and if folks on my side of the political fence don’t take kindly to it when he does, there’s REALLY no reason to even pretend to like it when Santorum does it. Yes, I know…He said this back in ’08. But, until I hear him articulate that he understands he SHOULDN’T have denounced Protestantism as a whole…He’s just earned a spot on my haughtyness shit-list.

I FULLY understand, and appreciate, that some people in our society view the current state of Christianity in this country as having weakened. It is THEIR RIGHT to have that opinion, and, in some instances, I would agree. However, logic dictates that one should NOT slam an ENTIRE section of Christianity, when one does NOT know everything there is to know about the subject. And…Although this isn’t something I would normally do, I’m going ‘there’, because I’m pissed off as this ‘ass-wad’…Does Rick Santorum understand that, as a Catholic, willfully choosing to ignore the DECADES of child abuse cover-ups within the Catholic church, he’s acting the part of what was once referred to as a ‘good little papist’?!?!

Mr Santorum…HEAL…THY…SELF. And while you’re at it, tone down the ‘sex’ chit-chat, huh?! No one gives a DAMN what you believe in regards to what the ‘proper use’ of sexual realtions should be. This is one of those ‘TMI’ moments, Mr Santorum. Learn from it!!

It seems I’m not the only person taken aback by this ‘tone’ from Santorum too…
John Podhoretz over at the NY Post said this:
(snip)

All this suggests that Santorum is animated and motivated by an unpleasantly bleak outlook on the morals and manners of the country he now says he wishes to lead.

Like many culture warriors, he is disappointed by America and its failings, which — as his controversial views on the morality of birth control demonstrate — he believes stem from an excess of self-indulgence and the elevation of sexual appetite over self-restraint.

There is no way that a man who expresses such a dark view of the American national character can win the presidency.

Remember: This entire process is a job interview in which the candidates are trying to get hired by the electorate. Insulting the electorate and accusing it of spiritual weakness and sinfulness are not the ways to get yourself the job of president.

There are many other bloggers, columnists and other folks out there taking issue with this direct insult to Protestants everywhere. Podhoretz is just one. I’ll leave it up to you to check the others.

BOTTOM LINE: In a country that’s seeing rising prices for gas & food, the crime along our borders, obamacare breathing down our necks, unemployment levels around 9% (and higher, if you look at true numbers including those who have stopped looking or stopped getting unemployment)…Spending time insulting Protestants and having almost daily diatribes about what sex should be used for…Isn’t even making a dent in our REAL problems. Santorum is leaving many with the impression that he believes curing our societal ills will fix ALL of our ills. In reality, he needs to start acting like a President who understands what government can and cannot do, with regards to a citizen’s private life.

It is NOT a function of government to mandate/dictate/promote government-regulated behavioral norms for our society, when it comes to law-abiding citizens, and what they do in their private lives. One cannot be against Michelle Obama’s “food police”, Obamacare, and ‘death-panels’ (for starters)…And yet be FOR any level of government control over behavioral norms for law-abiding citizens within our society. Just because one agrees with it in one instance, but not in another…That doesn’t make it right. Government instrusion is government instrusion. Government over-reach is government over-reach. One CANNOT logically agree with it in some instances, and denounce it in others, and remain an intellectually honest person. That’s all there is to it.

****

02/22/12 UPDATE:
Over the past few days, there’ve been a few great blog pieces at Townhall, Ace of Spades and HotAir regarding this same issue. I’ll link to them (and post snips) below:

Townhall: Rick Santorum and the Threat to Social Conservatism
(snips)

by Carol Platt Liebau
Blogger, Townhall.com

But the rise of Rick Santorum raises concerns that social conservatives may have almost as much to fear from their allies as from their adversaries. Just last week, Senator Santorum managed to transform the debate over the HHS regulations from an issue of religious liberty – uniting conservatives, libertarians, and other Americans of good will in opposition to the ObamaCare overreach – into an issue of contraception. His history of remarks denouncing contraception as “harmful to women” and “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be” has effectively (though inadvertently) shifted the controversy away from the autocracy of ObamaCare to the merits of birth control.

As a result, this staunch defender of social conservatism has, ironically, divided Republicans and weakened the case against the HHS regulations. Worse, he’s given Democrats and their allies in the press the opportunity to marginalize Republicans by inaccurately portraying them as hostile both to contraception (a minority view even among conservatives) and to women’s rights. In an election where the support of female suburban voters may well be pivotal, this is a real problem

(…)

Rick Santorum is certainly a patriot, and a man of courage, conviction and principle, but he lacks the cheerful demeanor and deft touch that mark the most effective proponents of social conservatism. Indeed, the danger Senator Santorum poses to social conservatism is grave, and it is real. First, his history of inflammatory statements coupled with a persona that can come across as dour and preachy opens him – and social conservatism – to easy, ugly caricature that could marginalize and cripple the movement disastrously for years to come.

Finally, Senator Santorum’s tendency (understandable in a candidate) to discuss social conservatism in the context of government policy overlooks the central role that religion and the culture must play, if the ideals he so clearly cherishes are ever to win the day. In an era when Americans are coming to recognize the dangers of an over-powerful, too-intrusive government, choosing a nominee who seems all-too-willing simply to swap his own (socially conservative) government policies for President Obama’s (left-wing) ones cedes Republicans’ most powerful rallying cry for retaking The White House this fall: It’s all about freedom.

Ace of Spades: Santorum: The Founders Didn’t Intend “The Pursuit of Happiness” to Be About “Stuff” or “Pleasure;” The Definition of Happiness Back Then Was “To Do the Morally Right Thing” and The “Freedom To Pursue Will”

(snips)

Once again, Santorum does not merely not have a libertarian streak, but speaks about liberty in a hostile and disparaging manner.

Apparently the Pursuit of Happiness just means that I’m free to live my life according to religious doctrine.

I’m glad that in an election primarily about Obama’s failure to create a good environment for wealth-creation — the creation of “stuff,” and, in terms of disposable income and time off, “pleasure” — we’re going to be talking about how “stuff” and “pleasure” aren’t that important.

(…)

Freedom isn’t just the freedom to make the right decision. Freedom is also the freedom to make the wrong decision. A government that only gives you the freedom to make the right decision isn’t given you much freedom at all, and is assuming a paternalistic, daddy-says-so relationship to its citizens.

My problem… continues to be that every successful Republican candidate speaks about the energy, vitality, courage, and creativity of freedom, whereas every time I hear Santorum turn to the subject he talks up the fear of freedom.

posted by Ace at 12:30 PM

HotAir: Santorum 2008: America is under attack from Satan
(snip)

posted at 4:52 pm on February 21, 2012 by Allahpundit
(…)

Commenters are noting that Santorum couldn’t ban contraceptives as president even if he wanted to. Indeed: The Warren Court’s Griswold decision makes that impossible and it’s unlikely in the extreme that there are five votes on the Roberts Court to reverse it. I used contraception as an example only because it’s been in the news lately and because Santorum’s said before that he has no regulatory designs on it. But the point stands. Why wouldn’t a president who’s passionate about America’s perceived moral failings want to use his power to whatever extent he could to reverse them?

Again, in proper context…My problem with Santorum on this specific issue is his insult to Protestantism as a whole. I also fully agree with what Carol, Ace and allahpundit have posted in their pieces.

| Comments | Collapse