Why Santorum is wrong: When God sees sinful world, that includes U.S.

By David McElroy · February 22, 2012

When I got into politics professionally more than 20 years ago, I learned one thing pretty quickly. The worst people in the business to trust were the ones who talked a lot about being Christians and talked about being on a mission from God to change the world by getting elected.

Those were the people most likely to try to cheat me. They were the ones most likely to cut corners and justify their “little” dishonesties with the justification that they were trying to do God’s will. As a Christian, that sickened me. I learned that I could trust most of the rest of the folks in the business. If they had been around for awhile — even if you knew they were liars and thieves — you knew there was an “honor among thieves” that you could mostly count on.

Politicians such as Rick Santorum scare me. It’s partly because of his cavalier willingness to use government force to impose his judgment on other people while spouting rhetoric about liberty. But even more than that, it scares me that he seems to believe he’s on a mission from God.

In a speech four years ago at a Catholic university in Florida, Santorum laid out his view of the world. In his version, the United States is on God’s side. The parts of the world that oppose this country are evil. He seems to have missed the point that when God sees a sinful and fallen world, that includes us, too. Instead, he sees a holy and righteous United States — led by the U.S. government, of course — on God’s side. He said:

“Satan has his sights on the United States of America. Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition.”

Let me be clear. I’m not taking issue with the notion that evil — in the form of Satan — is active in the world and “seeking whom he may devour,” as the book of 1 Peter puts it. I definitely believe there’s evil in this world. I take issue with the notion that the U.S. government or any other U.S. institution is any more righteous than the governments or institutions of other countries. If you believe the Bible — as I do — we live in a fallen world. There’s nothing special or holy about this country. God isn’t on our side. He’s on His side — and He calls individuals to changed hearts and changed lives. But the government of this country is no more “on God’s side” than Cuba’s government or Iran’s government.

Santorum sees the United States as decent and good, but that’s not a biblical view. In the book of Romans, Paul clearly tells us that nobody is righteous. Jesus saves individuals and makes them acceptable to God, but the fact that there are some Christians here doesn’t make what this country does good. I see a government that lies, kills and shows a callous disregard for people around the world as it uses force to impose its will. To see that as an institution on God’s side is to be blind to the facts or blind to the faith you claim to believe. But Santorum sees the United States as a good and decent country being attacked from the outside:

“This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies 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? He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions.”

This is an arrogant, prideful attitude that betrays a belief that this country is somehow different from all others. (We’ve talked before about the folly of American Exceptionalism.) What’s more, I see hints in the speech that indicate that he sees God’s hand in electing him to the U.S. House and then to the U.S. Senate. He sounds like a man who thinks he’s on a mission from God. (Cue the Blues Brothers.) Listen to the entire speech and decide for yourself.

Most of the people who are upset about the speech seem to be upset for the wrong reason. In his speech, Santorum decries the modern mainstream Protestant churches as having lost their way completely. That’s a theological point, not a political point, but it’s one I agree with completely. It’s just hard to see how that would be the point for the political left to pick out to complain about in the speech. From the viewpoint of any theologically conservative Christian, the mainline Protestant denominations are Christian in name only, certainly not in theology.

Santorum wants to see the United States as God’s agent in the world, apparently. Haven’t people from pretty much every country wanted to see God — or whatever god or gods they worshipped — as being on their side? In World War I, both sides were equally convinced God was with them. Both sides were ignoring scripture and history in believing that.

Santorum is ignoring scripture and history to believe that there’s something special about the United States. When God sees a fallen world, He sees this country as neck-deep in sin, just like the rest of the world. The idea that there’s something spiritually special about this country is arrogant at best, blasphemous at worst.

Sadly, many who call themselves Christians are going to fall for this great dishonesty. The Father of Lies must laugh at the irony of fooling the religious people most of all.

Note: On Tuesday, Santorum criticized new reports about the speech, but he didn’t disavow anything he said. “If they want to dig up old speeches of me talking to religious groups, they can go ahead and do so…,” he said in Phoenix.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts