a mouthful of santorum (it’s like a spoonful of sugar… only with more fecal matter)

Hopefully, Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum put one more nail in the coffin of his reelection bid today by refusing to apologize for statements he’d recently made suggesting that the “liberalism” of Boston had been responsible for the recent cases of pedophilia in the Catholic Church. According to the Boston Globe, Santorum suggested that, “the city’s sexual license and sexual freedom nurtured an environment where sexual abuse would occur.” (Not surprisingly,
the victims of the abuse aren’t accepting his analysis.) One would hope that the good people of Pennsylvania would find his linking of Democrats to pedophilia to be a bit distasteful, in not downright offensive, but you never know. Perhaps it will give him a boost in his sagging poll numbers… “If all else fails, tell them that the Democrats want to take their Bibles and fuck their kids.” That’s right out of Rove 101.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

17 Comments

  1. Posted July 15, 2005 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    Unfrickin’ real about the banning of the Bible…especially since Democrats are so known for banning books. Oh, wait, no, that’s Republicans, or if you will, their Religious Right counterparts.

  2. Shanster
    Posted July 15, 2005 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    Yeah, there’s no way that the irreligious left would ever want to limit anyone’s free expression of their faith. Unless you actually look at the world. I found this on a Jewish religious protection site:

    May public school teachers pray in front of a classroom of students?

    Short answer: No.

    Example: A teacher supervising a study hall period may not recurrently sit at her desk and openly read the Bible.

    Explanation: Public school teachers may not pray or read the Bible or a similar religious text to themselves in front of schoolchildren, regardless of their purpose in doing so. Even if teachers have no intention of indoctrination, the message they convey to an objective student observer is one of religious endorsement. Courts have upheld this rule on constitutional grounds.23

    So, a communist may read Mao’s little red book, and a gay person may read gay literature, but a Christian reading Christian literature is dangerous.

  3. Posted July 15, 2005 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    All of the left is not irreligious as you people on the right seem to think. I am as left as you can get, own a Bible and actually go to church every Sunday.

    And this might surprise you, but I agree that the woman should have been able to read whatever book she wanted while supervising Study Hall, be it the Bible, Harry Potter, or Mao’s Little Red Book. I think that Playgirl might be a little too risque for a school setting, however.

  4. Doug Skinner
    Posted July 15, 2005 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    That does seem excessive, unless she was reading aloud. Where was this?

    I’m also curious how the court would define “a similar religious text.” What about Dante? “The Little Flowers of St. Francis”? A biography of Martin Luther? Where is the line drawn?

    The irreligious left may be with you on this, Shanster!

  5. Doug Skinner
    Posted July 15, 2005 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    But — I’d see a teacher praying as a private act inappropriate for the classroom. Like brushing her teeth — you wouldn’t want to make it illegal in the classroom, but it’s not the best time or place for it.

  6. Tony Buttons
    Posted July 15, 2005 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    I wonder what would have happened had that same teacher tried to sit down and relax with a copy of The Advocate, or some other non-sexual “alternative lifestyle” magazine?

  7. Doug Skinner
    Posted July 15, 2005 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Or Darwin?

  8. Tony Buttons
    Posted July 15, 2005 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    Cardinal Law, the man most responsible for the generations of abuse that are just now coming to light, was, I think by anyone’s measure, a conservative. It’s also true, I’m told, that the incidents of mollestation were not most prevelent in Boston. There were many more incidents of mollestation by priests, for instance, in Kentucky. Santorum is wrong on every count.

  9. Tony Buttons
    Posted July 15, 2005 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    Or the Quran.

  10. Jim
    Posted July 15, 2005 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    The guide Shanster cites seems to be referring to Roberts v. Madigan (1990). The 10th Circuit Court

  11. Posted July 15, 2005 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, Jim. Always nice to get the whole story, not just the part that suits somebody’s agenda.

  12. chris
    Posted July 15, 2005 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

    Shanster…Shanster…hello? You there?

    Smack Down

  13. Shanster
    Posted July 16, 2005 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    I’m here Chris, but I have other responsibilities. I wasn’t citing a specific case, but thanks, Jim. The info I got was from AJC.org. In that case, if the teacher had just removed his philosophical poster or added another with another viewpoint, he may have fared better.

    I agree that any teacher should be able to read just about anything on their own time and in study hall. All I was saying was that Kathleen’s first post disregarded some importatnt facts, and that having limited access to the Bible is a fear for Christians because we have seen such restrictions in East Germany, China and others. I think the right and left have to keep each other in check.

    Doug-
    Many Christian teachers make it a practice to pray for their students and families. A convenient time to do this is before class begins, while standing in the front of the room. How would anyone know if you are praying, just resting your eyes, or meditating transcendentally? They wouldn’t, and it’s not anyone else’s business.

  14. Jim
    Posted July 16, 2005 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    I think that the AJC guide is being excessively cautious in its interpretation of this case.

    Roberts had removed the poster when Madigan asked him to, but the court nonetheless ruled that his Bible reading had the effect of promoting Christianity. One justice dissented from the decision, and the Supreme Court decided not to review the case. This seems to me a difficult case of weighing the rights of students and teacher, but the general principles are clear.

    I don’t think that anyone needs to worry about Bibles being banned in America; Christianity is well protected in this country. Imagine if a public school teacher displayed a poster that said, “You have only to open your eyes to see that there is no God.” He’d be run out of town on a pole by the end of the day!

  15. mark
    Posted July 16, 2005 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    Very nice thread, guys. I like it when good conversations take place here… Unfortunately, in this case, I have absolutely nothing to add.

  16. Doug Skinner
    Posted July 17, 2005 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    Shanster — Sure, I see no problem with it if it’s private. And let me add that the only reason this is an issue at all is because the classroom is a particular place with its own special guidelines; and that those guidelines were set up to preserve religious freedom by keeping the state out of it.

    And don’t listen to the GOP when they tell you Democrats have horns and eat Bibles! That’s just partisan mud-slinging, and a new low, at that.

  17. mark
    Posted July 17, 2005 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

    I checked Google and the phrase, “democrats eat bibles” didn’t turn up any hits… You’d gotten my hopes up, Mr. Skinner.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Connect

BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Ruth Marks