Romney PLEASE! and NOT Santorum!

[catherine]

That pesky separation of church and state is just a fleeting annoyance to most, apparently.

But the question remains: why is it that Catholic/Christian candidates and lobby groups are all aflame about issues Jesus never mentioned, like homosexuality and abortion, yet staunchly opposed to most of his teachings on materialism, taking care of the "least among us," the money-changers, etc. and why do Catholic candidates and lobbyists pointedly ignore the Pope's pronouncements along the same lines? (Notice my beef here is with hypocrisy, not lobbying per se.)

Good one, Jane!

[JaneV2.0]

I think the notion of keeping church and state separate is designed mostly to keep the state out of the church, not necessarily the other way around. Any large group can influence policy simply because they have a lot of votes. In the case of the Catholic Church they have a LOT of votes.

As for hypocrisy, human nature might be the simplest and best explanation. The Pope is essentially a political appointee. The participants in a Papal Conclave wouldn't just draw a name out of a hat, the candidates need to have long and distinguished careers moving up the ladder. I can't imagine the process is entirely different than advancing to very high ranks in the US military. Anyway, the leaders of the Catholic Church are immensely powerful men. It makes sense that they would have similar characteristics to people drawn to very powerful positions in government or finance or other captains of industry.

But my point was that the Vatican sets Catholic policy, which I thought was to be adhered to by its followers--and Catholic politicians in this country--at least those on the right--seem to be pointedly flouting it, with a few exceptions like birth control, which even the Church has loosened up on somewhat. (See the position on condoms and AIDS. Pope Benedict in 2010)

And right-wing politicians calling themselves Christians are likewise flouting Jesus Christ's core teachings as laid out in Matthew by elevating the powerful and scorning the poor, IMO.

Matthew 6:24
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." NIV

[bae]

But my point was that the Vatican sets Catholic policy, which I thought was to be adhered to by its followers--

It's more complicated than that. Different sorts of "policy" are due different levels of compliance.

[LDAHL]

That pesky separation of church and state is just a fleeting annoyance to most, apparently.

But the question remains: why is it that Catholic/Christian candidates and lobby groups are all aflame about issues Jesus never mentioned, like homosexuality and abortion, yet staunchly opposed to most of his teachings on materialism, taking care of the "least among us," the money-changers, etc. and why do Catholic candidates and lobbyists pointedly ignore the Pope's pronouncements along the same lines? (Notice my beef here is with hypocrisy, not lobbying per se.)

So you object both to candidates’ opinions being informed by Catholic doctrine, and to candidates’ opinions being insufficiently orthodox? I have been a Catholic my entire life; and while I have encountered much good, have yet to meet perfection. If anything short of that mark disqualifies a candidate on a hypocrisy basis, we will have trouble keeping the government staffed.

Look at our current President, for instance. The champion of public campaign finance who becomes the first major party candidate to reject it. The man who sees fit to lecture the Supreme Court about Citizens United in his State of the Union address, but steers contributors toward favorably disposed super PACs.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Yes well, it is quite possible that their concern isn't any of these issues but positioning themselves in the elections. What politicians wanting to win? How shocking . Now how or why anyone decided cultural issues were the issues to run on I'm not sure. I mean you've got to do some kind of brand differentation, but that as a marketing move ... hmm ... don't know about that marketing there.

Maybe we should be glad, it could be worse, they could be running on being more militaristic than Obama etc. (they are to some degree but ...). It could of course be much better, but I suppose that is too much to expect.

[Alan]

Now how or why anyone decided cultural issues were the issues to run on I'm not sure. I mean you've got to do some kind of brand differentation, but that as a marketing move ... hmm ... don't know about that marketing there.

I don't believe anyone was running on cultural issues until George Stephanopoulos conveniently brought up contraception in a debate, approximately one week before the administrations contraception kerfuffle. But you may be right about the "marketing" angle. I think the GOP has been sucked into the opposition's marketing strategy, leaving them in an unfriendly defensive position. I mean how can you successfully correct a negative, once it's been presented as fact to a willing populace?

[LDAHL]

I don't believe anyone was running on cultural issues until George Stephanopoulos conveniently brought up contraception in a debate, approximately one week before the administrations contraception kerfuffle. But you may be right about the "marketing" angle. I think the GOP has been sucked into the opposition's marketing strategy, leaving them in an unfriendly defensive position. I mean how can you successfully correct a negative, once it's been presented as fact to a willing populace?

I think you're right. We may be seeing more Church-baiting in the future if the GOP doesn't wise up. Who's advising these guys? Where's Karl Rove when we need him?

[bae]

We may be seeing more Church-baiting in the future ...

Spot on, that's exactly what the current ruckus has appeared to be to me.

Just keep bouncing between race-baiting, church-baiting, and class-baiting, and we'll have a ball-game...

I'm sick of it all. Which may be the intended effect, to keep people from even caring any more.

[peggy]

I don't believe anyone was running on cultural issues until George Stephanopoulos conveniently brought up contraception in a debate, approximately one week before the administrations contraception kerfuffle. But you may be right about the "marketing" angle. I think the GOP has been sucked into the opposition's marketing strategy, leaving them in an unfriendly defensive position. I mean how can you successfully correct a negative, once it's been presented as fact to a willing populace?

What cave have you been living in?
God, guns and gays! The 3 G's of the GOP!

Not running on cultural issues?? Let's see, Obama is an American hating/baby killing/terrorist loving/socialist/commie/Stalinist/fascist/pinko Nigerian who wants America to fail so he can bring in his European style dictatorship complete with an army of anti-American commie liberals who will steal your kids, rip your head off and s--t down your neck. Oh, and he's a Muslim too!
Naw, republicans don't try to fear monger with phony cultural issues. It's all Stephanopoulos' fault!

[Alan]

Well Hello Peggy. I'm pleased to see you come out and participate with each of my posts.

Your list is interesting from an Ed Schultz, propagandizing sort of perspective, but I'm wondering which candidate campaigned on any one of those things?