So the GOP is about to nominate a Mormon or a Catholic.

… And no one is bleating anti-their-religion mantras against them with any credibility.

Am I the only one who finds this pleasantly weird?

K-Lo noted Rick Perry’s repeated references to Rick Santorum’s Catholicism down in South Carolina, perhaps because Perry was getting more support among Evangelical Protestants than was Perry, who is an Evangelical Protestant. Perhaps Perry was trying to remind his co-religionists that Santorum was “other.” Perhaps not. Doesn’t matter now, Perry is out of the race.

And he endorsed…  a Catholic.

Granted, Gingrich is a “young” Catholic, with a less-than-impressive history on personal things Catholics value, but he is a professed and practicing Catholic.

But yeah: Barack Obama, the Post-Modern President who makes decisions based on what makes the most sense right now with no necessary connection to what made sense before or what might make sense in the future, will champion the party that considers religion a thing “over there” that’s cute, but really ought not have much of an impact on your life.

And the GOP will pit against him either a Catholic or a Mormon, but definitely someone who considers his faith an integral part of his life and a foundation or guiding light for a significant portion of his moral reasoning.

Anyhow, not sure what it means or how it will factor in, but there it is.



  • Brian C

    Just like the mainstream media, an article that pretends that Ron Paul doesn’t exist.

    • Tom Crowe

      No, just recognizes that he’s not going to get the nomination.


    Hey Tom ~~~ Remember that Ron Paul is still in the running. Shouldn’t the headline read “So the GOP is about to nominate a Mormon, Catholic or Randian Objectivist.” Pax tecum, Greg

    • Evelyn

      Ron Paul is rejected by people and I guess Catholics on this very site, because he doesnt state like Newt, that we should kill our enemies. You are talking about people who support people who boo the Golden Rule here. I always thought Jesus required us to love our enemies. But I guess I read that wrong.

      • Tom Crowe

        Evelyn— If you knew with as much certitude as you could possibly have that someone who lived on the other side of town would kill you and your friends who live nearer to him if only he had the ability and the police stopped stopping him, would you believe it the right and fair thing to do to tell the police to stop stopping him because, well, that’s just not fair? Well, Iran is that neighbor around the world, and, like it or not, we are the police in this case. Loving your enemies can require you to do what is necessary to prevent them from harming others so that they do not heap further coals upon their own head, up to and including lethal force. Self-defense and defense of others is always legitimate, and not in tension with loving your enemies.

        • bpeters1

          You could always just have the police go across town and, based on your suspicions, preemptively assassinate the guy. You could then declare it “wonderful.” People might even come to your defense and say that such an action was a matter “prudential judgment” and doesn’t necessarily constitute dissent from Catholic teaching on just war!

          • tz1

            They would be more credible if they promised to pardon George Tiller’s assassin. Across YOUR town TODAY, killing dozens of innocents daily (unlike the iranian scientists, not just a potential threat) and the police protect the killer… We have an abortion holocaust. The candidates you picture say there are no, rules, laws, the ends justify any means. But only if that means killing or torturing towelheads (even american citizen towelheads)!

            Call for blood all you want, just remember you are standing knee deep right here and don’t think a million dead innocents this year suffices in any way to cross the threshold for any, much less deadly force. Only potential, maybe hyped and possibly illusory threats 10,000 miles away allow us to blow things and people up even when there is a lot of collateral damage.

            Ron Paul won’t assassinate abortionists nor blow up clinics. But he says he doesn’t have the authority to do that or do things over seas without a declaration. Your three believe in the ‘unitary executive’ that they have such powers to end abortion within a few days as well as slaughter large numbers of civilians, insurgents, american citizens on their signature if they think they are a threat. But will never do the former.

            They apparently don’t believe God judges countries that do such things – Abortion is no threat to our national security.

      • Greg Smith

        Eveyln ~ The Golden Rule and the philosophy of Ayn Rand are totally antithetical to each other. Pax, Greg

  • bryan

    religion is not politics and politics is not religion we should pick our president based on his religion and morals i want a president who represents us well in the world and does a good job here and Obama is the most popular leader in the world and the most respected so we should relect him because like newsweek said why are his critics so dumb we have seen 5 million jobs created and all he does is offer ideas. SO OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!

  • tz1

    Or a baptist, married to the same woman for 60 years that belives in human dignity and the rule of law and personall delivered 4000 babies.

    Who believes in the rule of law, the constitution, and subsidiarity.

  • Evan

    I can’t be the only person with serious reservations about Newt Gingrich supposedly being a ‘Catholic’ candidate, especially as more revelations regarding his morality (or lack thereof). It just makes me sick to my stomach. Can anyone take a word that he says about “the sanctity of marriage” seriously? Anybody? Bueller?

    • Tom Crowe

      Evan— Has Gingrich ever advanced political actions that would violate the sanctity of marriage? His personal failings aside, since we’re electing a President and not a husband, we can check his record as a politician and see how he has acted in governance. On that score he has done well. —— And I wish people wouldn’t presume to sit in judgment of others’ conversions, especially based on things done before the conversion.

      • Evelyn

        Well you could say after the conversion he still takes money from Fannie and Freddy telling the world it was because he is a historian and not that he accepts money from lobbyists. That seems a little duplicitous in my view. Now too mention, how does a Catholic site like this one, square him saying that he would ‘kill’ his enemies? Is that how you really believe it should be handled? Just like that?

        • Tom Crowe

          Evelyn, let’s dispense with the pedantic interpretation of the word “kill,” when it was clearly used in a metaphorical sense as it is used in countless competitive settings. That aside, on Fannie/Freddie, I believe you assume too much. His firms were paid between $1.6 and $1.8 million over the course of a number of years, but according to the officials at Fannie/Freddie he never did any lobbying for them—he gave counsel on public policy issues. Which sounds like the sort of thing you would ask a historian who has special knowledge of how Congress works to do. Just because someone worked for or was on retainer with Freddie/Fannie does not mean they are ipso facto evil or single-handedly brought down the economy.

      • tz1

        We should not sit in judgment to declare the conversion as sincere either. Only time might give us indications.

        Yet given his waist, it will be hard for him to argue austerity or self control. (I would be curious how the remaining four would do in a shortened triathalon).

        On sincerity, I remember the Contract with America. I thought they would actually fight for it – attach things to veto-proof bills, continuing resolutions, etc. Silly me. He meant they would vote once, what got through they would let Bob Dole water down in the Senate, and let Clinton veto most of what got through.

        The Climate change with (now fellow catholic?) Pelosi wasn’t that long ago, and his gaffe about “implantation” was this campaign.

        And younseem to be arguing his conversion won’t have any effect on how he would govern as it was fine when he wasn’t Catholic. Strange conversion that can be both meaningful and meaningless, changing everything and nothing. (Rerum Novarum anyone?)

        Perhaps it is merelynthe Bush dynasty, but Dr. Jekyll campaigns and gets elected, and Mr Hyde – and I don’t mean Henry – governs.

        Honor and integrity are rare in good times, but if you are arguing it, who has the best and longest track record of sticking to principles? Not just hope that shortly after a damascus road event they are trustworthy.

    • Evelyn


      I completely agree. I for one can’t take him seriously. Even tonight Santorum said that behind the scenes that Newt doesnt really want to have the social issues brought up. Is that because he really doesnt believe in them? That perhaps he panders to the people in his party that do and nothing more? Something just doesnt seem right about him.

      • Tom Crowe

        Evelyn— As I said to Evan, it’s not like Newt is an unknown commodity on how he’d govern on social issues. He has an extensive record, and it is a rather good one. Santorum is an opponent so he will bring out the negatives more readily than the positives, natch. And while Gingrich is quite a bit of a loose canon at times, his actual record as a person making governing decisions is quite good.



Receive our updates via email.