Rick Santorum: "mainline Protestants aren't real Christians"

[Lamplighter]

I really despise calling names, so I find myself very frustrated with Rick Santorum.
His "rhetoric" is not political rhetoric in today's sense.
Instead it is the extreme religious theology of his church.

John Kennedy found it necessary during his campaign
to draw the line between his politics and his church.
But Santorum is not making any such attempt.

Instead he is using phrases to code the far-right's attempt to make Obama an outsider,
an outsider in his race, in his religion, in his politics, in his care for the well-being of others.
Santorum is being extremely parochial with respect to education, sex,
women's rights, minority rights, and most other issues he discusses.

So, I'm no longer willing to avoid the use of certain terms when it comes to Santorum.
It's just a matter of which term(s) to use...

An enthusiast displays an intense and eager interest in something
An extremist is a supporter of extreme doctrines or practices, particularly in a political context
A fanatic is not only intense and eager but possibly irrational in his or her enthusiasm;
A zealot exhibits not only extreme devotion but vehement activity in support of a cause or goal
A bigot exhibits obstinate and often blind devotion to his or her beliefs and opinions.
- Bigotry implies intolerance and contempt for those who do not agree

Today, any of these would describe Santorum, but religious "zealot"
seems to me to be the most appropriate, and "bigot" is running a close second.
Santorum is on a religious crusade, and makes no effort to separate
his doctrines from his intentions, should he become President.

I do feel badly in using such terms, but I'm at a loss for alternatives
that come close to describing my reaction to this man.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Today, any of these would describe Santorum, but religious "zealot"
seems to me to be the most appropriate, and "bigot" is running a close second.
Santorum is on a religious crusade, and makes no effort to separate
his doctrines from his intentions, should he become President.

But...he wears a sweater vest. He must be safe.

It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis

Full text

[Griff]

His views presently hold sway in the Scranton diocese. There has been a hard push to the right over the last couple decades essentially telling people to submit or leave. I chose the door. What surprises me is that there are people outside the door willing to play this game.

[Lamplighter]

Wow ! ...if I'm reading you right... :

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Wow ! ...if I'm reading you right... :

Within 1 hour of making that post my Dad tried to give me some phone number from his priest to "stop Obama from making the bishops pay for abortion pills." I try not to be frank with Dad about this stuff but I did tell him that he doesn't want me providing my opinion. There used to be talk of stripping churches of their tax free status, I'm ready to listen.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by richlevy

But...he wears a sweater vest. He must be safe.
It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis
Full text

And it may be closer than we think with this GOP candidate...

[Start thread-drift]
Newt Gingrich's official web site
Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution
NEWT 2012 Position Paper Supporting Item No. 9
of the 21st Century Contract with America:

<snip>This NEWT 2012 campaign document serves as political notice to the public and to the
legislative and judicial branches that a Gingrich administration will reject the theory of judicial
supremacy and will reject passivity as a response to Supreme Court rulings that ignore executive
and legislative concerns and which seek to institute policy changes that more properly rest with
Congress.

A Gingrich administration will use any appropriate executive branch powers, by itself
and acting in coordination with the legislative branch, to check and balance any Supreme Court
decision it believes to be fundamentally unconstitutional and to rein in any federal judge(s)
whose rulings exhibit a disregard for the Constitution.
<snip>
In areas of law in which the executive branch believes that the judicial branch has made
decisions that exceeded its constitutional powers, the President can direct the Solicitor General to
join litigation challenging the existing jurisprudence believed to be unconstitutional.<snip>

[/End thread-drift]