Santorum labels Obama's theology 'phony'

[jane333]

Because it's not Bible-based. In his opinion. And yet he's so NOT concerned about his own phony superstitions. How typically ironic.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...phony-theology

[Auburn Boy]

He has trouble differentiating between "doctrine" and "theology."

[dharma]

Maddow's arguments boils down to:

Since when is it the job of presidential candidates to question others' theology? ... This is not, in other words, a theocracy. Criticizing a rival for refusing to base his or her governing vision on the appropriate "theology" is wholly at odds not only with First Amendment principles, but with the American tradition itself.

The answer to her question is: since Obama tried to relate his policy of forced redistribution of assets to his "Christian faith". In other words, he brought it up first, and Santorum is pointing out that there is no precedent in the Bible for involuntary taxation (unless "Render unto Caesar ..." counts). Nowhere in the Bible does it say "love thy neighbor as thyself—by ripping off your other neighbor to pay for it".

Obama not only doesn't understand economics, he doesn't understand the Bible, on which he purports to base his life. Big surprise.

[jane333]

dharma,

I suppose we can't fault Santorum for the gaffes of his press secretary, if that's the 'her' you're referring to. But the comment that I read strictly references Obama's beliefs...not anything as simple as his policy, the perceived fault of his judgement lying with his religion, not his politics.

There's no way to not see that as ugly in the context of a Constitution-based republic.

As far as Obama and his understanding of the Bible, you might ask the leaders of the tens of thousands of different Christian sects worldwide about their 'understanding' of that text. I'd be inclined to think that their answers would be vastly, shockingly varied.

[Ought Six]

I think this one belongs in Politics.

[flourbug]

Good point. Moved.

[dharma]

Originally Posted by jane333

if that's the 'her' you're referring to.

The article was written by Rachel Maddow, and, as has been noted, is about religion in the context of politics, not religion per se.

[jane333]

It was written by Steve Benen acc. to the byline. He's apparently a producer for The Rachel Maddow Show. Not that it makes that much difference. LOL

So, if Obama had professed, say, Hindu or Buddhist or Jain beliefs in the same breath that he criticized unfair tax advantages for America's ultra-rich, we'd be hearing what exactly from the Christian fundamentalist candidates? How would they spin that, I wonder, to make it sound dirty, phony, evil?

[Ought Six]

Originally Posted by jane333

It was written by Steve Benen acc. to the byline. He's apparently a producer for The Rachel Maddow Show. Not that it makes that much difference. LOL

So, if Obama had professed, say, Hindu or Buddhist or Jain beliefs in the same breath that he criticized unfair tax advantages for America's ultra-rich, we'd be hearing what exactly from the Christian fundamentalist candidates? How would they spin that, I wonder, to make it sound dirty, phony, evil?

If he used a invalid theological argument supposedly based upon the dogma of the religion he professed to believe in, people would point out the error. To call that 'spin' is obviously false. It is a perfectly valid observation, if correct.