Rick Santorum: the Too Far Right’s Radical Dominionist Theolotican on a Dangerous Rip

Disclaimer: The right to one's religious beliefs is a sacred aspect of our American Values.

However, when one religious sect, organization, or leader begins to trespass against the Founding Freedoms (even egregiously misquoting and misrepresenting the Founders' words and intentions), which we have enjoyed as a nation, established around a carefully crafted secular governmental structure, then it is time to ask citizens of this nation--of whatever faith or no-faith--to earnestly attempt to determine if this kind of relio-political theolotics is acceptable for the entire public.

Ask whether such intrusions should be passed over when our votes are cast for representation in civic government? If these radicals take a path of study and research and their mounted crusade becomes onerous to such parties as may want to preserve America's historic separation of church and state. Now we must reject these who may be attempting to radically co-opt government for their form of theocracy, claiming that any rejection of their erroneous attempts to religiously inject religion into government is a process of anti-Christian persecution of themselves. Calling themselves "persecuted" over their promotion of such radical ideology is an expected protective reaction and a typical defensive tactic-in itself erroneous and incorrect.

Rick Santorum is undermining the stature of the Roman Catholic Church in America and is engendering a backlash of Know Nothing blow-back reminiscent of the KKK ugly anti-Catholicism of the 1920's.

If only the more sensible American Catholic Bishops could guide Sen. Santorum back to basic truth-telling and the vital balance necessary for the preservation of universal religious tolerance--the mature attitude we have striven as a country to achieve for so many decades.

-----

Rick Santorum is a Christian Nationalist. He supports a "Christian" America, he, as other Christian Nationalists, refuses to accept separation of church and state, and they are bound to continue to set out to mold, force, the rest of society to conform to their peculiar and specific sense of what is morally right and wrong-both politically and religiously. They're prime backers of the Right-to-tell-you-how-to-run-your-life-for-you crowd which is mounting its church-based efforts to Christianize American society. Sen. Santorum and such groups hold a theocratic and narrow definition of Christianity and morals based in historic Fundamentalistic, Strict Catholics, and capitalistic Calvinism. This is best exposed in Sen. Santorum's blatant attack on "mainline" Protestant churches, whom Rick claims are at the end of their influence and purposes-no longer "Christian."

Many of the religious far right are strident Puritans akin to that of the John Calvin's Geneva during the fifteenth century. Another part of the "values voters block" include individuals such as Santorum, who is symptomatic of the crusading uber-Catholic conservatives who want to see Roman Catholicism made dominate in America. This group includes Ann Arbor's Tom Monaghan of Dominoes fame. Monaghan has created distinct enclaves of "pure" traditional Roman Catholic belief, such institutions as the Ava Maria University in his idyllic theoloplis Florida town, Ava Maria, east of Naples. Tom Monaghan, Ave Maria's founder, has been criticized in the press for proposing that contraceptives, abortion, and pornography be banned from the university and the town itself. In 2007, Monaghan drew criticism from Catholics both inside and outside the university when he removed theologian Joseph Fessio as provost.

Mr. Monaghan is reputed to be a member of Opus Dei and has been aligned with a number of other very conservative Catholic organizations and causes. Santorum is a close ally of ,if not a member of Opus Dei. Both Monaghan and Santorum are knights of magistral grace in the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (Monaghan materials here are drawn from Wikipedia).

On the Reader:
See "Opus Delusional: Santorum - God’s Avenger" - "St. Santorum Fails the Defender of Truth Test" and more on Rick Santorum and the 2012 GOP Primary.

Response to religious right use of religion in politics in "Let the government be the government & Let the church be the church".


Original.

Opus Delusional: Santorum - God’s Avenger

A Rick Santorum led "Opus of Delusions," whip roiling the "Madness of Crowds," is but a toehold clue (insight) on a larger more dangerous rad religious right "crusade" to purify America and rectify the moral defects of modern society. Heading up such a "drive" Santorum has risen to stand against the majority. America, this spring is host to the "theater of the absurd" and the highly inflammable.

Rick Santorum has lit the fuse on a ticking bomb of renewed religious bigotry and sharp sectarianism. His efforts if allowed to metastasize can poison the well in the commons for all of America.

Allowing Santorum's crusade to succeed is to see the religious cultural war-as rudely introduced to politics by radical Catholic Pat Buchanan at the Houston GOP National Convention, 1994, is alarming. Buchanan's infamous presentation of "Cultural War" (as a political goal) engulfed this nation in an apocryphal fury which, still smoldering, will and can tear asunder American's unifying social and cultural fabric.

"We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them."
-- Scottish journalist Charles Mackay

The astute observer will conclude the Religious Rightist called together as "the Texas 150" met and anointed Rick Santorum as their choice for GOP nominee. Santorum is "God's man" to be elected by their "social conservatives"- the so-called "values voters." This religious cabal of autonomous religious authority figures (and the flocks they command) are driven by what has been described elsewhere: "a binary, Manichean vision of life and a hunger for conflict."

As a group, these devote religionists (cum political powers) have a highly malleable command in hectoring the religious voting block: "Their minds appear to have no more give and take than that of a terrier staring down a rat hole," that is, they continence "no compromise" on their issue no hint of dissuasion. Note, their loyalty and their commitment to a distinct set of "social issues" (to which they are called to support by their aggressive religious leadership) is without equal. Mediocre in their vote-getting efforts, they are not!

Albrecht Durer woodcutting "The Penitent" (1510) which
shows a man scourging himself (British Museum).

Suffering Santorum ("santorum" literally means "saint") & the Martyr’s Complex

This quote is the verbatim claim of candidate Santorum describing how American institutions and our nation's way of life are falling to evil forces:

"This is not a political war at all. This is not a cultural war at all. This is a spiritual war."

"And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies, Satan, would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age?"

Take Note: This is not a "dog whistle, it's a disaster siren to his base: Rick Santorum isn't about politics per se; in his mindset he's all about serving God and suffering for one's beliefs. Religious fervor buoys Rick and his social conservative supporters (who project into the politics of such candidates as George W. Bush, and now specifically, Rick Santorum) their fears of evil and the unknown which they harbor and labor under.

Rick's surname is a term derived from Latin meaning: "connected to someone acting as a saint, or who has connection with religious things (a sacristan)." What a perfect candidate for a kind of "martyrdom" in a hostile political arena. Yet Santorum seems to be saying: Bring it on!

For Sen. Santorum and his "values voters following" modernity, technology, and science are very spiritually threatening. Fighting off these threats feeds driving motivations for the aggressive religious right's desperate commitment to be "winning for Jesus." It all centers in promoting their exclusive, banded, "Jesus polices." This fanatical faction expects national leadership and policy to flow from their man once ensconced in White House. With close observation, we can extrapolate a partial portfolio of their prime goals and aims in this crusade. It's not a comforting picture.

The hot winds of a swilling and rabid religious storm are following, surrounding and supporting the front -running GOP candidate, Rick Santorum. Out of this storm we see that Rick has assumed role similar to that of one Father Coughlin of the troubled and turbulent 1930's, a cleric and strict Catholic. Coughlin was an arch-provocateur and agitator riling the fears and paranoia of religious conservatives. Eventually Father Coughlin crossed the line and his ranting was unplugged, long after deep damage was done to the country.

Coughlin's 1930's flock of extremists believed in no compromise. Coughlin's militant crusaders and fans were individuals for whom the Devil is real and the Devil's disciples are both identifiable and clear targets (think: liberals, secularists, 1960's activists), enemies perfectly attacked as the "enemies of God's people " and even "enemies of God himself." These terms were part and parcel of Dr. James Dobson's attack on Congress's judicial appointments and Sen. Patrick Leahy, all who opposed Dobson's intrusion into the process with his church based /national crusade designed to skew the SOUS appointment process toward the religious, extreme right's wishes.

Identify Santorum as a man lost in a one dimensionist's moral delusion, conceiving of only stark Black or lily White, he's Manichean. "Manichean" is widely applied as an adjective to a philosophy or attitude of moral dualism, according to which a moral course of action involves a clear (or simplistic) choice between good and evil, or as a noun to people who hold such a view." (Wikipedia)

-----

Operating in the religio-political arena which the "spiritual" leadership of Protestant-based Moral Majority remnants (ala Jerry Falwell) engendered are folk who can be moved by panic stampede. Appealing to them we now find Santorum. This faction, led by Tim LaHaye (still in the business of religious king-making) wants to mount Santorum's kind of red-meat political slug-fest. Santorum willingly provides fodder-hate radio style.

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
-- Scottish journalist Charles Mackay (who warned and informed his readers of "the madness of crowds.")

On the Reader:
See Also: "Diehard Fundamentalist Evangelicals & Pentecostals have essentially a no-choice “choice” for GOP Candidate for President"and "St. Santorum Fails the Defender of Truth Test".
More on Rick Santorum and the candidates in the 2012 GOP Presidential Primary on the Gazette.

Original PART 1 and PART 2.

St. Santorum Fails the Defender of Truth Test

Rick Santorum knows by heart the definition & meaning of "sin of omission." His failure to correct or rebut the angry, benighted cottonhead, who spewed vicious hate speech and bashing and libeling President Obama, is a gigantic fissure in his vaunted "values" image.

Is the distant possibility of the Presidency or the offer of the position of candidate for Vice President on a 2012 GOP ticket more important to Santorum than the chance he forfeited to be a courageous guardian of truth and decency?

Pragmatic omission has trumped Santorum's lengthy claim to the "moral high ground." With this one glaring omission and his milquetoast attempt to justify his grievous omission and error at the moment the incident occured will haunt Rick to the last days of his life.

Angry curmudgeon and hate-ranter woman in the audience:

"I never refer to Obama as President Obama because legally he is not. He constantly says that our constitution is passé, and he ignores it as you know and does what he darn well pleases. He is an avowed Muslim and my question is, why isn't something being done to get him out of government? He has no legal right to be calling himself president."

To make things worse. Santorum, by not rebutting the lying woman, built on the power and momentum of her assertion and cleverly joined in on her verbal thrust. Added immediately by Rick Santorum:

"Well look, I'm doing my best to get him out of the government right now.... And you're right about how he uniformly ignores the constitution. He did this with these appointments over the recess that was not a recess, and if I was in the United States Senate I would be drawing the line."

Were Santorum a genuine man of integrity and greater courage he would have reacted as did Sen. McCain during his 2008 campaign: Republican John McCain directly confronted an angry woman who at that time pejoratively described Mr. Obama as an "Arab" by saying:

"No, ma'am. He's a decent family man ... [a] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues."

The weak courage displayed by Santorum's meek excuse for his omission of an instant "moral challenge" is highly revealing: "I don't feel it's my obligation every time someone says something I don't agree with to contradict them, and the President's a big boy, he can defend himself and his record..." In other words I chose to protect those of my supporters who agree with this angry woman, and I certainly don't want to offend them or lose their votes.

In other words, Santorum will shield his supporter(s), however malicious or in error. This he did in order to protect his media sound bite for the evening's news hour. He'd leave the world believing he didn't know the answer to the woman's assertion. Or did he choose to simply refuse to defend the President under sharp attack, thus giving the distinct impression, he Santorum (smiling) relished this savage attack on the President's character? Coupled with Santorum's reference to the President as a "big boy" Rick's demeaner smacks of a deeper and far more troubling subliminal, instantaneous, instinctive approving rejoinder; revealing a very dangerous biased interpretation from deep within Santorum.

How simple would it have been for Santorum to say he's our President and an honorable Christian man; then defend Obama's honor with the whole truth?

But "(r)ather than disagreeing with the questioner or correcting her assertion by reminding her that President Obama is in fact a Christian, Santorum ignored the more controversial parts of her question." Observed Lee Bailey's EuroWeb site.

St. Santorum, the "values" endorsee of the Texas Religious Right 150 Coalition, has failed the moral courage test. Give Santorum a solid F- !

SEE Also: Let the government be the government & Let the church be the church.

Original.

Newt's Crafty Ploy: Outfox the Values Voters In South Carolina

It's another sample of Newt Gingrich's crafty redefinition of his own soiled character: Being "scrubbed up" by his knelling confession to the great Dr. Dobson, and additionally (for good measure), Newt's subsequent bold decision to convent to Roman Catholicism.

"From a Catholic point of view, Newt's sins no longer exist-they've been absolved. He's made a fresh start in life. So Newt will continue to sin and confess but there aren't going to be a lot of Catholics who will hold that against him. They understand why being a Catholic makes a difference." 

Source: Reported by based on Max Blumenthal's conversation with Deal Hudson, a Catholic political adviser to President Bush and Karl Rove, founder of the seminal Catholic journal, Crisis magazine.

Newt's conversion was all "a cold hard calculation." It was Newt's choreographed attempt to enter the "sacred circle" of the "born again" which satisfies the soulful approval/acceptance by the far right religious base of the GOP. It's these folk who go "all out" in blind support for a high profile "redemption" testimony.

There it is: Gingrich's grandiose game plan - lay claim to the "open-armed" "welcoming willingness" of millions of Fundamentalist, Evangelicals, and Pentecostals to believe in, and accept the sexually addicted Gingrich into the company of the "saved"-all scrubbed up.

BUT is it real?

Is it morally transformative?

Is it believable?

Is it a calculated sham?
Will it work to win over Protestant Evangelicals?

Newt's 180 degree turn to Catholicism, is it a deceptive device to find favor and "redemptive acceptance" from the Religious Right voting base in spite of his life-long low-life sexual history?

Conservative students at Catholic University protested Newt's showy conversion:

"When Catholic University announced in January 2005 that Newt Gingrich would deliver a speech on campus, a group of students rose up in protest, accusing the twice-divorced, admitted philanderer of violating the Catholic values that their school was founded upon."
-- Max Blumenthal

Excerpt from Huffington Post, "Newt Gingrich Marriage Infidelities: Church Forgives, But Voters?":

"On the issue of him cheating on wife one with wife two, and on wife two with wife three, and the hypocrisy that comes along with Gingrich being a key figure in the Bill Clinton impeachment process, it's not going to be lost on many evangelicals, who do care about sexual morality," said Laura Olsen, a political science professor at Clemson University in South Carolina.

"BUT A BIG PART OF EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY IS THAT WE ARE A FALLEN HUMANITY AND WE ARE NEVER GOING TO LIVE UP TO PERFECT IDEAL. ... IT'S MORE OF A QUESTION OF SAYING 'I HAVE MADE A MISTAKE, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MISTAKE AND I NEED TO TURN TO GOD,'" OLSEN SAID.

"Roman Catholics such as Gingrich -- he converted to the religion of his wife in 2010 and has fashioned himself as a Christian fighting an increasingly secular world -- differ substantially from evangelical Protestants in several ways, from their belief that bread and wine transform into the blood and body of Christ during Mass to the role of the pope and priesthood.

"But when it comes to forgiveness, there are similarities. While Catholics are required to confess their sins to priests in order to be absolved, they are also encouraged to pray and confess in private to God, as is common among evangelicals, who tend to identify with an experience of personal conversion, a strong personal relationship with God and a need to spread the gospel. Both strains of Christianity uphold the varied interpretations of the original sin, the idea that either humans or humanity lost innocence after the fall of Adam and Eve.

"In the Roman Catholic Church, where civil divorces aren't recognized, Gingrich also has needed to convince authorities that his previous marriages were not really marriages.

"Gingrich began the annulment process, which may take years, in 2002 with a request that the Archdiocese of Atlanta declare "null" his marriage to his second wife, Marianne Gingrich. Church observers believe he asked around the same time to annul his first marriage. Both requests presumably were successful, as Gingrich is now in good standing with the church.

"Church records on annulments are kept confidential and Gingrich's current priest, Msgr. Walter Rossi of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., declined to talk specifics about his parishioner. Experts in canon law, the internal rules of the church, say it's unlikely that a twice-divorced and twice-remarried man could join a Catholic church without his previous marriages being annulled."
(emphasis added)

Ask any of the 150 Texas Far Right Religious Leaders who endorsed Santorum how they stand on high moral principle. Some of that crowd still hold support for Newt rather than Santorum. They plan to promote an endorsement for Gingrich in spite of his past immoral sexual behaviors. He said that's past history, didn't he?

Where's the Moral Consistency in the behavior of these Gingrich supporting Texas 150; self-proclaimed religio-politicians and moral leaders?

What does it say about the "values voters" and their endangered commitment to God's 10 Commandments, when "winning at politics" undermines their moral principles and basic religious values?

See also:
Obama is the Anti-Christ & Dead Jerry Falwell has sent urgent word from Paradise “Vote Gingrich”
Let the government be the government & Let the church be the church.

Original.

Let the government be the government & Let the church be the church.

This exactly the OPPOSITE of what the 16 million member Southern Baptist Convention's Richard Land wants from the GOP. Land hopes this election helps RECOVER TO THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT the cozy relationship and power granted them under George W. Bush - the inside track and advantage.

Can Any Good Thing Come Out of the efforts of the Texas Religious Right's 150 meeting?

Often in America "policies are adopted, not because they generate more benefit for the body politic, but because THEY BENEFIT AN IMPORTANT SET OF PEOPLE," writes one economist and political observer.

How does the nation benefit from their elevation of Rick Santorum to be their "blessed" choice for GOP presidential candidate?

What is the actual economic and political impact of the cabal of 150 "secret" neo-moral majority participants in coronating a "righteous choice" for the GOP presidential candidacy - Sen. Rick Santorum?

We have endured a long dark, dangerous tunnel of heavy influence by Rad Right Religionists whose influence on legislation has been ubiquitous: The horrific midnight Terri Schiavo, congressional fiasco, the appointment of an overabundance of uber-conservative Roman Catholics to the U.S. Supreme Court, the steady march of pro-lifers stymieing a woman's right to choice in her own health and wellbeing at the state legislative level; and on other issues such as: the decertification of collective bargaining; along with the Koch Bros. use of a multiplicity of astroturf organizations to roll back environmental rules and regulations (EPA) in order to richly "bless" their monolithic gas and oil holdings, the support of Grover Norquist's "No New Taxes" vow, legislation that is anti-science, etc.

Contrast: The Purity of the Founders Opposition to the "Establishment of Religion"

"To hear the Religious Right tell it, men like George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were 18th-century versions of Jerry Falwell in powdered wigs and stockings. Nothing could be further from the truth.

"Unlike many of today's candidates, the founders didn't find it necessary to constantly wear religion on their sleeves. They considered faith a private affair. Contrast them to former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (who says he wouldn't vote for an atheist for president because non-believers lack the proper moral grounding to guide the American ship of state), Texas Gov. Rick Perry (who hosted a prayer rally and issued an infamous ad accusing President Barack Obama of waging a "war on religion") and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum (whose uber-Catholicism leads him to oppose not just abortion but birth control)."

Source: Rob Benson of Americans United.

The Corrupt Practice of Marrying the Church to the State, as has been the thrust of the Rad Religious Right now for well over 30 years. Doing so has made a mockery of many of its own various doctrines, standards, and moral edicts. This "marriage" has made a circus out of the political ethical high ground to which these advocates publically and loudly aspire.

The Economists' term "Public Choice" is "Politics without romance"
Wishful thinking...presumes that participants in the political 'Public Choice' act in a beneficial manner.

"As (economist) James Buchanan has so artfully defined it, 'PUBLIC CHOICE' IS 'POLITICS WITHOUT ROMANCE.' The wishful thinking it displaced presumes that participants in the political sphere aspire to promote the common good. In the conventional 'public interest' view, public officials are portrayed as benevolent 'public servants' who faithfully carry out the "will of the people." IN TENDING TO THE PUBLIC'S BUSINESS, VOTERS, POLITICIANS, AND POLICYMAKERS ARE SUPPOSED SOMEHOW TO RISE ABOVE THEIR OWN PAROCHIAL CONCERNS."

Source: "Public Choice" by William F. Shughart II.

HOWEVER: Politicians are not glowing angles of virtue-Not even former Senator Santorum

"'Public choice' is the application of economic models of self-interest to political science. The central assumption is that politicians are not glowing angels of virtue but prone to the same self-interested behavior as we might expect from anyone else. Basically public choice is, in the words of James Buchanan, "politics without romance".

"Studying 'public choice' is vital because people are susceptible to misconceptions. The moment economists admit that the market is imperfect due to problems such as public goods provision or externalities there is mass zeal for corrective interventions such as subsidies and taxes. Yet, this may not always be a good idea. The more legitimate question to ask is not whether the market is perfect; but, whether the political process is better."

Source: "Wise as serpents" posted February 2, 2011.

In the quest for constructive economic answers, the so-called "values voters"-blind followers of Right Wing Religious leaders, such as the Texas 150-are lost sheep.

Religion as a motivation for running secular government, a very bad idea
The concept of the use of taxes to punish by withholding the revenues from things this group does not support, or by taxing things that this select group wishes to undermine or limit is an antique idea that still holds promise for some who believe themselves to be morally superior to American society.

The debate over Taxes serves many purposes - including ignorance

"Alfred Cecil Pigou was the father of the idea that taxes could be used to correct negative externalities. An idea that Bruce Yandle (Senior Fellow Bruce Yandle, Clemson Alumni Distinguished Professor of Economics Emeritus and Interim Dean of Clemson's College of Business & Behavioral Science) points out is gaining significant popularity in a myriad of arenas: taxes on soda (to curb obesity) and taxes on large banks (to curb risky behavior). But, EVEN PIGOU DID NOT BELIEVE THAT POLICY HAPPENED IN A VACUUM. He offered this valuable insight:

"[W]e cannot expect that any public authority will attain, or will even wholeheartedly seek, that ideal. Such authorities are liable alike to ignorance, to sectional pressure and to personal corruption by private interest. A loud-voice part of their constituents, if organized for votes, may easily outweigh the whole."

"In short, 'public choice' is worth studying because we need to understand: VOTES ARE TO POLITICIANS WHAT PROFITS ARE TO BUSINESSES.

"Sometimes policies are adopted, not because they generate more benefit for the body politic, but because they benefit an important set of people. Finally ---and this speaks to Pigou's statement that "authorities are liable alike to ignorance"--- even if politicians were well-intentioned, there is no single Great Mind that could calculate the social costs or benefits needed to arrive at a corresponding tax or subsidy."

Source: Economic and Compassion - Wise as Serpents February 2, 2011.

-----

The American people, if allowed to think for themselves outside the intense media and propaganda world of "spin," care intensely about themselves and their families. They even care about local community and their nation. However, if their emotions and personal sense of ethics can be sidetracked by promoters of single issues and raw emotional religious fervor and are counseled against raising taxes, then they won't "vote their pocketbooks" and the benefits to themselves and the nation will be dashed.

This the situation we face in the 2012 elections-during a time when not nearly enough attention is being placed on a satisfactory national recovery, all the while Congress acts in TeaPartisan gridlock. To suggest and recommend to the large block of "values voters" that Rick Santorum represents the best "values" choice for the American presidency masks the clear threat that Santorum's Opus Dei devotion to expanding Roman Catholic influence over the United States (Santorum's highest goal) remains a very serious threat to the nation's basic secular freedoms.

Voting the Texas 150's "values" and ignoring everyday economic reality spells disaster. Voting "values" and ignoring the threat that Santorum represents to the preservation of Jeffersonian separation of church and state is unconscionable.

Purposeful blindness to the condition of the economy
This is the situation we face in the up-coming 2012 elections. And that is exactly what a "pledged vote" and endorsement from the Religious Right delivered in year 2000, a disastrous outcome: A "right wing religious" block vote (based on its leadership's vetting and endorsement process) resulted in electing a clearly under-qualified, mentally confused and burned-out George W. Bush. This man endorsed by the "Christian" Religious Right as a "bornaganiner" brought down the nation: Bush's lack of proper presidential attention to known terrorist threats (as indicated in CIA presidential daily briefings) led directly to 9/11, failure to curb federal spending (scant vetoes of run-away deficits), a war of 'choice' not paid by foreign debit, also Bush's complete inability to sense and prevent widespread corruption (WorldCom, Enron, Abramhof/Reed) and catastrophic Wall Street, mortgage, and banking collapses.

Normal citizens consistently "vote their pocketbooks"-favor of their own "best interests"

"In modeling the behavior of individuals as driven by the goal of utility maximization-economics jargon for a personal sense of well-being-economists do not deny that people care about their families, friends, and community. But public choice, like the economic model of rational behavior on which it rests, assumes that people are guided chiefly by their own self-interests and, more important, that the motivations of people in the political process are no different from those of people in the steak, housing, or car market. They are the same human beings, after all. As such, voters "vote their pocketbooks," supporting candidates and ballot propositions they think will make them personally better off; bureaucrats strive to advance their own careers; and politicians seek election or reelection to office. Public choice, in other words, simply transfers the rational actor model of economic theory to the realm of politics." 

Source: Presentation on Decision Making: Theories & Concepts.


The problem of church rule over and against state secular sovereignty
The injection of religious sectarianism, proscribed human moral behaviors or acts, strict prohibitions on drug substances and alcohol, and advantage given to certain fundamentalist ideology moves the "rational actor model" of politics in a very particular direction: Religionist hoping to run or rule the public square and legislate intend to coerce (by government police powers under their control) certain "values" or "defined moral behaviors" in ways that skew and distort the public realm in many ways not in the greater public's present or future best interests, especially, economic well-being.

Seeing the huge advantage and loop hole created by this Evangelical/Pentecostal/Fundamentalistic/Opus Dei power grab; corporations and internationalists have moved in to logically and systematically work against the "economic and social well being" of these true believers and glean huge profits and relief from their release from onerous regulations and rules corporations constantly complain are the overreach of government; deregulation has become a basic goal (value) for the far right religious coalition.

If it were that the "true believers" were the only part of the population effected by this distortion, so be it. But such is not the case.

Why must the entire nation be forced, by a powerful and hell-fearing faction, to vote and work against their "own best interests"?

Again...Ask the secret Texas Religious Rightist 150.


Original.

Diehard Fundamentalist Evangelicals & Pentecostals have essentially a no-choice “choice” for GOP Candidate for President

1.) How do the Religious Rightist choose to endorse a passionate, if not fanatical, Knight of Malta and papist, supporter of Opus Dei, who pushes every Catholic doctorate limitation on human behavior based on sexual behavior?

- Rick Santorum's pro-Rome agenda threatens the intrusion of European Catholic control into the U.S. Presidency in direct opposition to the stance taken by John F. Kennedy America's first Catholic President?

- Santorum accused John F. Kennedy of "great religious harm" saying: "that the distinction between private religious conviction and public responsibility, espoused by President John F. Kennedy, had caused "great harm in America." Santorum, Wikipedia "Rick Santorum, along with Karen and their children, regularly attend the weekly Solemn Mass in Latin at their local Catholic church, St Catherine of Siena, Great Falls VA - at which it seems that Gregorian chant is the norm. Santorum is also an active Knight of Malta. He was also present in Rome to mark the 100th anniversary of St Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer's birth at a special Opus Dei celebration. At that event nearly 10-years ago to the day, he told the well-known Catholic journalist, John Allen, that President Kennedy's distinction between private religious conviction and public responsibility had caused "great harm in America". He went on to add: "All of us have heard people say, 'I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it's not right for somebody else?' It sounds good, but it is the corruption of freedom of conscience." Now, there's a man who believes what he says, and says what he believes - a very rare politician indeed!"

See Related Source: Rick Santorum for President A Man of Faith and Conviction.


2.) How do the Religious Rightists choose to endorse between two Mormons whose religion is fantastic and non-Judeo/Christian; is said to be based in mythical claims of a contemporary/continuing, specific, ongoing revelation from God? Among the Religious Right there is no consensus on the question: Are Mormons Christians? If Mormons are indeed "Christian"; Can it be said in the reciprocal mode: Therefore, all Christians are likewise qualified as Mormons?

Franklin Graham in his article Mitt Romney's Mormonism Doesn't Bother Me:

"Evangelical minster Franklin Graham said voters should look past a candidate's personal religion when considering whom they should support for office. Graham offered his advice in a recent interview with The Christian Broadcasting Network when asked if Christians could vote for someone who is a Mormon."

South Carolina Pastor Reverend Brad Atkins, President of the South Carolina Baptist Convention: Mitt Romney's Mormonism More Troubling Than Gingrich's Infidelity. This Southern Baptist leader said that he believes Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will lose the South Carolina primary to Newt Gingrich simply because Romney is a Mormon.

Pastor Mark Driscoll, from the Seattle Mars Hill Mega-Church : Mormonism Is 'Antithetical to Christianity'; "by the theological definition, Mormonism is a cult."

- Bill Keller, the founder of LivePrayer.com, with over 2.4 million subscribers, says Joel Osteen and Franklin Graham have a duty to expose Mormonism as a cult; "They are looked up to as prominent Christian leaders," Keller said in an interview with The Christian Post:

"When you have someone like Franklin Graham going on CNN and saying he has no problem voting for a Mormon like Mitt Romney and Osteen saying Mormons are Christian, it is clear that politics are being put before the eternal soul of man."

3.) How do the Religious Rightists decide to choose to endorse a moral reprobate who has a long and sordid sexual history as a philanderer and adulator, albeit cleaned up by his recent conversion to Roman Catholicism and his suing for an annulment of his second marriage? See: The Three Marriages of Newt Gingrich.

4.) How do the Religious Right endorse a radical Libertarian who wants secular freedom to act and do, in a private manner as does not injury other humans, would limit drug war, does not support the national Civil Rights Act, and wants "just to be left alone" by government?

Ron Paul's 2004 floor speech about the Civil Rights Act, in which he explains why he voted against a House resolution honoring the 40th anniversary of the law:

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife."

"[T]he forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty."

Ron Paul also occasionally appears at events sponsored by the John Birch Society, the segregationist right-wing organization that is closely aligned with the Christian Reconstructionist wing of the religious right.

4.) How do the Religious Right " resurrect" their prayerful "hands laid on" choice as per the much discussed spring Rick Perry prayer rally in Texas? Rick is a Texas-style "born again" of the same vein as George W. Bush-the Religious Right's vetted and fully supported faux-Christian "born again" candidate- choice for the 2000 presidential campaign?

-----
Some of the Religious Right Heavies at the Endorsement Decision Table in Texas

1.) Richard Land from the Southern Baptist Convention:

- "Mitch Daniels has suggested that Americans call a "truce" on divisive social issues until our precarious financial house is back in order. Many pundits have praised the idea, typically thrilled that a Republican leader seems willing to jettison, even temporarily, strong positions on abortion or gay marriage. But social conservatives are mad, and rightly so.

"THROUGHOUT THE 1980S AND '90S, SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES WERE THE FOOT SOLDIERS FOR REPUBLICAN VICTORIES-ONLY TO SEE THEIR ISSUES BARGAINED AWAY OR SHOVED TO THE BOTTOM OF THE GOP AGENDA, BENEATH ISSUES OF FISCAL AND FOREIGN POLICY. Reacting to Gov. Daniels, former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee recently said: "For those of us who have labored long and hard in the fight to educate the Democrats, voters, the media and even some Republicans on the importance of strong families, traditional marriage and life to our society, this is absolutely heartbreaking."

Land Continues:

"Most social conservatives are also fiscal conservatives. They recognize that a federal government that borrows more than 40 cents of every dollar it spends is committing generational theft, spending our grand children's money and impoverishing their future. Social conservatives also argue that government has such high costs partly because of the broken families, broken communities and broken ethics generated by moral relativism.

"The millions of social conservatives and tea party voters firmly believe that Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. THEY EXPECT PRO-LIFE, PRO-FAMILY LEGISLATION AND THEY WANT DEEP CUTS IN FEDERAL SPENDING, INCLUDING AN END TO OBAMACARE AND ITS REPLACEMENT WITH PRO-LIFE, FREE-MARKET HEALTH-CARE REFORM. THEY EXPECT COMMITMENTS TO THIS EFFECT FROM THEIR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES."

Land:

"There is a deep longing in large segments of the American populace for a restoration of a morality that emphasizes personal obligations and responsibilities over rights and privileges. SUCH A SOCIETY WILL HAVE A RESTORED MORAL SYMMETRY IN WHICH EXEMPLARY PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR IS REWARDED AND LESS EXEMPLARY BEHAVIOR IS NOT. As Jesus reminded us, 'Man shall not live on bread alone.'"

Source: Richard Land in "Americans Don't Want a 'Truce' on Social Issues" in the Wall Street Journal, April 2, 2011.

Just how Richard Land's vision of rewards and punishments in pursuit of "restored moral symmetry" is not lined out, leaving the inquiring wondering as to how such events will be meted out. Is this the rightful role of government, as envisioned by Dr. Land?

2.) James Dobson, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council: Equating stem cell researchers with Nazi criminals:

""In World War II, the Nazis experimented on human beings in horrible ways in the concentration camps, and I imagine, if you wanted to take the time to read about it, there would have been some discoveries there that benefited mankind." "...And you remove ethics and morality, and you get what happened in Nazi Germany." "

Dobson: Called Senator Patrick Lehy an "enemy of God's people" for the senator's Far Right opposing stance on appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. How close is that to being an "enemy of God?" We all know what is allowed to happen to the "enemies of God", do we not?

Dick Armey on Dobson's intrusion into government: Former House Majority Leader Armey declared:

"The criteria of choice in just about every behavior you see in Congress today is politics. Where in the hell did this Terri Schiavo thing come from? There's not a conservative, Constitution-loving, separation-of-powers guy alive in the world that could have wanted that bill on the floor. That was pure, blatant pandering to James Dobson. That's all that was. It was silly, stupid, and irresponsible. Nobody serious about the Constitution would do that. BUT THE QUESTION WAS WILL THIS ENERGIZE OUR CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVE BASE FOR THE NEXT ELECTION."

Armey added:

"To a large extent because Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies. I pray devoutly every day, but being a Christian is no excuse for being stupid. There's a high demagoguery coefficient to issues like prayer in schools. Demagoguery doesn't work unless it's dumb, shallowas water on a plate. These issues are easy for the intellectually lazy and can appeal to a large demographic. These issues become bigger than life, largely because they're easy. There ain't no thinking."
(emphasis added)

3.) Don Wildmon, the former chairman of the American Family Association: Interview with Rev. Donald E. Wildmo on what is the evidence of anti-Christian attitudes by the networks?

Rev Wildmon:

"I could probably count on one hand, or certainly two hands, the number of programs in which a Christian depicted in a modern-day setting is shown in a positive manner. They're usually depicted as con men, rip-off artists, adulterers, murderers, rapists, thieves, liars. A person who is wearing a cross, carrying a Bible or standing behind a pulpit is usually mentally deranged, at best incompetent."

Source: Time article "Bringing Satan To Heel."

-----
Time is Running Out for the Religious Right to Make an Impactful Endorsement
From the Washtington Post:

"The tension is exacerbated by the deep divisions between two key GOP wings: tea party groups yearning for a pure small-government conservative, and evangelical Christians who want a loyal social conservative.

"In one sign of their desperation, some activists are holding out for what they acknowledge is a spectacular long shot: a late-entering savior who could still qualify for enough state ballots and win enough delegates to force a brokered GOP convention this summer.

"THE ROMNEY CONUNDRUM WILL BE ON THE AGENDA FRIDAY WHEN ABOUT 150 EVANGELICAL LEADERS HUDDLE AT A TEXAS RANCH TO DEBATE THEIR NEXT MOVE. Likewise, the subject of consolidating conservative opposition to the former Massachusetts governor is expected to be a major point of discussion among about 500 attendees at a tea party convention set for this weekend in Myrtle Beach, S.C., where the list of speakers includes two Romney rivals seeking the conservative mantle, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

"'We're aware that the vote is being split and how dangerous that is,' said Joe Dugan, a Gingrich supporter who is chairman of the Myrtle Beach Tea Party and coordinator of the convention.

"'We're trying to encourage coalescing around one candidate,' Dugan added. 'But tea party people are very independent-minded.'" 

(emphasis added)

-----
Playing Religious Right's Endorsement "Final Hand"/Game Plan Coming Out of Texas
The upshot, the long range game plan: Facilitate keeping as many challengers to Mitt Romney in the chase. Purpose: Keep Romney short of the desired/required number of delegates needed for the nomination and then, at the GOP National Convention at Tampa, draft former Florida Governor Jeb Bush as the Far Right Religionists' "hands-laid-on" candidate.


Original.