Comments for Santorum against the Current at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 6 out of 6 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Fri, 24 May 2013 12:58:01 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/santorum-against-the-current.html#comment-4867 Senator Santorum endorsed Arlen Spector in the last senatorial primary. Spector jumped to the Democrat Party. Spector is abortionist in view. This gives me pause about Santorum. - Dennis Larkin Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:12:45 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/santorum-against-the-current.html#comment-4865 Santorum is not pro-life. On 09-13-1995, he voted to REQUIRE that states have family caps in their welfare policies, a provision where welfare payments are not increased for additional children born to welfare mothers; and to REQUIRE that states deny support for minors bearing children out of wedlock. These are pro-abortion--the fact that they were requirements makes them all the more clearly pro-abortion. On the other hand, working families have dependency exemptions and child tax credits to help them raise children. - blue8064 Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:42:34 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/santorum-against-the-current.html#comment-4864 My sincere apologies to Mr. Arkes for addressing him by his first name. It was not intended to be insulting. - Doughlas Remy Tue, 14 Sep 2010 19:17:52 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/santorum-against-the-current.html#comment-4860 Let's put aside for a moment this rare feat of mixing vacuity with venom, which seems to be Mr. Remy's specialty. But I must post the most emphatic objection to being addressed by him by my first name. I do not know him, let alone knowing him as a friend. His sneering references to me by my first name is nothing other than a dismissive, denigrating gesture. It has no place in The Catholic Thing. The editors have been generous in their tolerance, but it is time to bring a stop to this. - Hadley Arkes Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:03:48 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/santorum-against-the-current.html#comment-4859 Mr. Remy, if "every single health care organization" declared incest and pedophilia healthy productive lifestyle choices, I assume you would object. Would you please explain to me on what grounds you would reject such a declaration? Thank you. - John Coalson Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:09:52 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/santorum-against-the-current.html#comment-4857 There is speculation that Rick Santorum may run for President in 2012. If he does decide to do so, I trust he will make full disclosure about his religious views. Voters will be especially interested to know where he currently stands on issues such as intelligent design, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, abortion, and contraception, as it is in these areas that his personal religious beliefs affect his political positions most profoundly. The charge will be made that his beliefs about these matters are irrational and “merely” religious, and his candidacy will enliven the national discussion about the role of personal religious beliefs in politics. All to the good. We will probably continue to need that discussion for as long as religions function within democracies. Santorum’s positions on intelligent design, homosexuality, and the other issues I listed are not in fact informed by scientific thinking. Some of them fly in the face of both reason and evidence, so I think there is good cause for describing them as “irrational.” Furthermore, they are clearly based in Santorum’s religious convictions. Voters want to know where a candidate is “coming from.” What, for example, is the source of Santorum’s bizarre and nearly incoherent statements about homosexuality and same-sex marriage? (e.g., equating homosexuality with incest and pedophilia) His remarks are at odds with the findings and conclusions of every single health-care organization in the U.S. Voters want to know if their candidate is capable of clear and critical thought and whether he is amenable to reason. Santorum’s views about homosexuality are obviously based in his religious beliefs. This may be a cause for serious concern to millions of Americans who do not share those beliefs. Anthony Kennedy was correct in finding that disapproval of homosexuality is born of animosity and that it “lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.” Americans have good reason to be concerned about pressures on politicians, whether these pressures are from labor unions, environmentalists, corporations, or foreign entities such as the Vatican. And the Vatican’s pressures can be intense, as we saw in the case of John Kerry in 2004. (Kerry was excommunicated for his views on abortion.) This is what worries voters about Catholic candidates. It’s the question, “Who is controlling this guy, and is he beholden to a foreign state?” Regarding Hadley’s remarks about the meaning of religion, I don’t think we should broaden the definition of religion to include any “deeply held belief.” To do so only diminishes the meaning of religion. I do not wish to be called “religious” because I happen to believe that the Sun will “rise” tomorrow morning, or that our Earth’s atmosphere is warming, or that the Earth is several billion years old. The purpose of words is to make distinctions, not to obscure them. And finally, if Rick Santorum has taken it upon himself to assert the rational ground of religious conviction, as Hadley claims, then he has taken on a very ambitious—and I daresay, impossible—task, and he may have chosen the wrong profession. - Doughlas Remy Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:26:39 +0100