I'm mainline and he never had my vote. Now I no longer see him as someone I disagree with but as someone who chooses to insult my beliefs.

What idiot would open their mouth and say such stupid things?

This is not much of a surprise. He's a moron.

He's someone I tend to block out most of the time.

I live in Missouri. We have our own nutbags to worry about around here without worrying about what Pennsylvania's dug up from under a rock.

But I know, just when you think they can't get any lower...

I just didn't think he would go much lower and think he could dismiss it.

Maybe I gave him a bit more sense. I thought he dreamed of being a career politician. What career politician attacks his core, his base?

TPTB planned on having Obama serve two terms as they put the final bits into place for the full conversion of the US to a fascist state. I know how that sounds, but if you've been paying attention, all the indications are there. The way I figure it, and I come at this from the position of "How would I go about creating a lasting fascist paradise out of America?", the first thing I'd want to do would be to get control of just enough of the media to take advantage of a particular psychological weakness in a large portion of the US populace. This fear-based weakness could be easily exploited to turn vast numbers of people against those people who are capable of identifying my plan and possibly foiling it. Once I have the nation so divided, I would have my swaths of lobbyists create a legislative/legal framework whereby the basic infrastructure and the economy of the nation were put under great stress. I would 'allow' for one who represents the more enlightened constituencies to have the White House and mobilize my media assets to whip the ignorant 'sports fans' into a frenzy of hatred.

Then, after the tenure of the Democratic president which the media has used to crystalize the fear and hatred of several million people, I'd see to it that a Republican was installed in the White House. It would be a Republican who would immediately enact tax cuts, deregulation, privatization policies, and a host of other policies that would be sure to sabotage the barely recovered economy. I'd probably find a strong female candidate, if I could. Then, as oil peaked, famine spread, and economic collapse hit, the media would dutifully blame the 'liberal communists' and my hordes of morons would don their black boots, crosses and flags, and round up everyone that could possibly threaten my new empire. The formula is very refined by now, and all indicators point to inevitable fascism.

Meanwhile, I couldn't have someone knocking Obama out of office so soon. We can't get the hordes of morons to turn on their fellow Americans as easily as we could by letting them start to taste prosperity again. Because Romney might actually have a chance at beating Obama, I'd want the media to poison him from the get-go among the wingnuts. That way any of the other morons could get the nomination and flame out.

It's what I'd do. I never made a claim to complete sanity.

Ave Maria, Florida. Never heard of it? The Catholic Church teaches this, at least they did 40 years ago, about all demnominations of Protestinism. I am not the least surprised that he said this, or where he said it.

I heard about him on 60 minutes awhile ago.

That being said, I went to Catholic grade school and Catholic High School,

and was taught by nuns and I NEVER heard that sort of nonsense about Protestants

Did the Catholics preach a certain "superiority" over protestants?...Of course,

Just as many Protestant churches groups preach moral superiority over Catholics.

That being said, I would never heard anyone "demonize" protestants this way

when I was going to school and that was VERY far back -- Fifties to Mid--Sixties.

He also founded and funded the Thomas More Law Center.

They are the "Universal" (i.e. Catholic) church, you see! Those "Protesters" are simply dissenters from the "True way." They are the heretics, don't you know! The Universal Church used to teach that those heretics would have to spend a long-ass time in Purgatory for not following the teachings of the one true church! And those Jews! Why, fuggedaboudit~!! No Jesus? No Saint Peter~~! And that means No Pearly Gates, no happy cloud to float on for all eternity in perfect bliss! And oh, those HEATHENS~! Poor dears, talk about screwed!

I probably ought to slap up one of these babies right quick before someone starts thinking I am seriously advocating, here (for some reason, that happens to me a lot, even when I use that dripping smilie!).

I think that, back in the old days, demonization was disguised as "poor, poor Protestants, they know not what they do." So there was no overt "demonization" but the essential sentiment was there nonetheless. Now that there are more Protestant churches biting into the business pie of the Catholic Church (evangelical and storefront churches, particularly, who don't shun divorced/remarried members) the Catholics feel a need to become more strident, to keep the customer base in line.

At the end of the day, it is simply a business, selling salvation, paying close attention to the bottom line, and it's all about market share. It's a unique business, though, somewhat Ponzi-esque, in that the customers, like Santorum, are pressed into being the "salesmen," and their reward (so they believe) is a guaranteed first class ticket to heaven.

I use examples in separation of church and state arguments of laws that specifically denied things like holding public office, or voting, or even being an officer of the state in the capacity of a lawyer were expressly forbidden by Protestant-passed laws in several of the original 13 colonies. I use them all the time, actually. It was improper then, it is improper now, against any religious or non-religious group.

So, they might have a fair grudge there.

But it HAS been a little over 200 years for most of those laws being repealed, while prohibitions on Atheists taking office still exist in some states.

Irish and Italians and Poles and so forth, too! It was a caste/class thing, and the religion was simply the icing on the Papish cake.

And of course, there were the odd people who came here earlier in our nation's history as a consequence of religious persecution, too.

I'd rather see people fighting over a card game than religion, frankly--it makes more sense, not that it makes much in that case, either.

There are lots of dumb laws still on the books, that if challenged, would be erased in a heartbeat: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/17-ridiculous-laws-still_n_481379.html

I grew up in Philadelphia and did tours of the historical sections as an adult..I remember hearing how Constitution Hall must have stunk to high heaven in the summer.

People of the the 18th century and later -- class be damned -- were dirty and flea-bitten, although it's true that the "upper classes" could employ "nitpickers"* to take the bugs out of their hair.

Yes, that's where the term comes from.

I'm referring not to 'actual hygiene,' here, but more to the relationship between the moneyed brahmins of Boston and other large northeastern cities, and the often slum-dwelling poor and slightly better housed working class masses who served them. When the Catholics (Irish and Italians, mostly, as well as Poles and other ethnicities) took political power as their numbers reached critical mass, the balance changed, and those rough fellows started wearing nicer outfits and making decisions, which didn't always sit well with the people who had held the power previously.

I was in Philadelphia a little more than a year ago, and took the tours again--very enjoyable. They were doing more construction across the street in the area where the bell is housed; I imagine that has come along since I was last there.

Odd fact--in Philadelphia, the one Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence was prevented by law from holding political office or voting, solely as a consequence of his religion--kind of funny, since he was from the Catholic state of MD:

Last edited Sat Feb 18, 2012, 10:44 AM - Edit history (1)

when virtually no one washed.

It was religious prejudice, pure and simple...If you could add class, ethnicity and political issues (such as England vs. Ireland)

to the mix, so much the better.

and my Mormon cousins are presently trying to save their dead catholic relatives, "retroactively", if you will.

"I think that, back in the old days, demonization was disguised as "poor, poor Protestants, they know not what they do." So there was no overt "demonization" but the essential sentiment was there nonetheless"

Sorry, but I disagree.....Patronization is not a "disguise" for demonization, it's more like condescension -- a mild sense of superiority (which was and continutes to be reciprocated by Protestants) and it stops FAR short of "demonization".....If the Catholic Church thought Protestants were "from hell", they wouldn't allow Catholic-Protestant intermarriage, as they do, nor would they recognize both protestant baptism and protestant marriage as "legitmate", as opposed, in the latter case, to civil marriage which they don't recognize as a "marriage" at all.

You're free to wax cynical about religion as a "business", but, generally speaking, they're no worse than the protestants.

At least not pre-Vatican 2. Vatican 2 changed everything, but please understand that I am talking about the period BEFORE then. The catechism is (or was) quite unambiguous in that regard.

It's just that people were not rude or strident back in those days. Every Catholic schoolchild knew, straight from the lips of those nuns and priests, that upon their deaths, their little Protestant friends were going to float in purgatory for a long, long time, and their little Jewish friends were going to burn in hell. If that's not "demonization" I can't think of a more suitable term.

Anyone who was educated by Catholics or who experienced the Catholic Church AFTER 1962, cannot fully appreciate what the Catholic church or teachings were like prior to Vatican II.

Back in the day, Catholic - Protestant marriage WAS a big no-no, unless the Protestant in the arrangement agreed ahead of time that any issue from the marriage be raised Catholic. And there were restrictions on how and where those marriages could take place.

Pre-Vatican 2, things were not at all as ecumenical as they have been in the past fifty years. People were simply less brutal in discussing these matters in "mixed company." From a Catholic perspective, it didn't really matter what non-Catholics had to say about it, either. They regarded non-Catholic religions as heretic and therefore inferior.

I think the Protestants are every bit as wrapped around a business model as the Catholics. The Jews, the Muslims, pretty much every religion that puts some person in charge who holds the "telephone to the Big Man in the Sky" and who is a conduit for salvation or communication with a deity has an interest in passing the plate and acquiring cash for the cause. It's not just a Catholic thing, though, because they've been entrenched and centralized for a longer period of time, they have that fundraising thing down to a science--they are the paradigm that is imitated by others.

and that is notable, I believe, because the Philadelphia Archdiocese to which I

belonged, was known as being more conservative than most.

Perhaps for some reason, your diocese, or school environmnet was more negative

than mine because "mild" would be the ONLY term you could use for my school and

church when it came to attiitudes toward protestants, and that would include

intermarriage.

My uncle married a Mormon and they had three children, so they, along with

other friends and neighbors, made our house one that was full of "mixed company".

I am unfamiliar with this animus toward protestants of which you speak.

There was no effort made to demonize mainstream Protestant churches in that era either. My recollections is that Pope John XXIII made a point of meeting with other church leaders and that continued for a while after his death.

Prior to that, though, the teachings were very, very different. There was genuine "demonization," though it was polite. I think telling children that their little non-Catholic friends were not going to heaven is pretty demonizing--but hey, that's just me!

This has been pretty much beat up, but I'm with you.

I'm now a lapsed Catholic who went to public schools, but attended a Jesuit university where I was forced - FORCED! - to take 4-semesters of theology, and I never once heard anyone disparage Protestants or Jews.

Best Theo class I ever had was with a cloistered priest with a PhD in Theo who they let out to teach courses. In my class was an Israeli who had lived in a Kibbutz (sp?). Kid KNEW his Bible and the priest got into into it with him one day. "Tell me your interpretation of this? Of this?". Took the entire class up with a conversation and they both got a kick out of each other. The rest of us just sat back, shut up, and listened and learned a whole bunch of stuff.

I'm also a lapsed Catholic, but sort of your "opposite" in terms

of school experience: After twelve years of catholic school I could not WAIT

to go to a non-sectarian college, and I did!

My condolences on the FOUR semesters of Theology!..That being said, your

experience with the priest and the inter-faith discussion with the Israeli

sound intersting.

I remember listening to a rabbi make a comment once, on the concept of Jews

as "The chosen people". He said "This shouldn't be interpreted as being 'exclusive' --

Maybe other peoples have different 'agreements' (or 'covenants') with God". I found

that to be an interesting, open-minded view.

but it seems so odd that someone who is in the public eye would say it out loud.

Common sense says that if you ever plan on running for the highest office in the land you probably shouldn't upset any part of your base.

This is a dream for the Democratic Party. Not one of the big three can win the Heartland. Newt's a serial adulterer, Santorum hates Mainline Protestants and Romney's LDS. (I've already heard the comments about how some of the base can't vote because "he's a Mormon".) With the candidates available reelection seems inevitable.

...tuna-and-noodle casseroles.

--imm

maybe sweaters are of ... I dunno ... maybe SATAN!

Ave Maria University?

That's the Tom Monaghan brand of Catholicism.

Let's start a crusade.

Fab brainstorm, Ricky!

These kinds of extracts are gonna kill Santorum, who is going to be a cakewalk for Obama ....

Yeah. Rmoney wont be that much greater a threat, but it would make it closer, and for no good reason ...

GO Santorum ! ....

Seriously. I can't stand the man, but I also can't stand seeing how utterly out of it he really is. SOMEONE needs to help this guy.

Paragraphs 818-820, specifically. Here's the best part: "All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted asbrothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

How about that, Ricky?

The part in quotes is ... let me make that perfectly clear!!

given the quote, but, hey, if the fundies see it that way, it could mean the last gasp for Sicky Ricky.

count.

Sure he's a clever guy and a great orator when running for election... but to have *this* clown brigade to run against? Wow. That's incredible luck.

No where in the Santorum quote does he literally say that mainline Protestant churches are under the the influence of Satan.

to make shit up and the "protestansts are with Satan" is decidely "made up shit".

Protestant churches. This would include the white Southern Baptist Church but not the non-denominational mega churches. Santorum also parts company with his Catholic faith on many issues, such as the death penalty, so he does a lot of pick and choosing on faith anyway.

he is parroting the teachings of Opus Dei which is the most aggressive and repressive arm of the Catholic Church.

a Scaife/Coors funded outfit that is aimed at blocking progressive initiatives in mainline churches.

The Not-Romney crowd, which is most of them, will hear his stumbling, inept, excuse of "uh, I didn't mean, uh, mainline, I meant not mainline, like in Unitarians and the United Church of Christ." They'll nod in agreement and love him all the more for it.