-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I’m an Episcopalian. These days the national Episcopal Church is a hotbed of liberal asininity. But even the Episcopal Church, in its modern, liberal iteration, holds fast to the idea that Satan is real and that he is insidious and that he must be repeatedly renounced and rejected. Here is a key part of the current Episcopal liturgy for Holy Baptism:
Then the Celebrant asks the following questions of the candidates who
can speak for themselves, and of the parents and godparents who speak
on behalf of the infants and younger children
Question Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces
of wickedness that rebel against God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you renounce the evil powers of this world
which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you
from the love of God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept him as your
Savior?
Answer I do.
Question Do you put your whole trust in his grace and
love?
Answer I do.
So why are Santorum’s remarks even an issue?
View all comments (20) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/22/episcopalians-and-satan
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
EqualTime| 2.22.12 @ 4:04PM
The issue is not that the words were spoken, it's that they were spoken by someone running for President who has apparent difficulty in keeping his religious views separate from his "government running" views, on this and many, many other subjects of conscience. He has every right to do so, he has freedom of speech and of religion. Voters, however, will have to decide if this is the person they want appointing Supreme Court Justices and otherwise running the country.
Drek| 2.22.12 @ 6:07PM
Unfortunately for Santorum, it plays to existing stereotype. An unfair stereotype, but a present one nonetheless.
It would be like former Governor Sarah Palin saying something genuinely stupid. She would be crucified for it, for it would play to the caricature they fashioned for her, caged her in, and refuse to ever allow her to escape from.
They're wicked people who do such things.
And there IS somebody behind their actions.
mjs_pa| 2.22.12 @ 7:45PM
Santorum's Ave Marie University speech was given in 2008 to a Catholic University.
Rick was a private citizen sharing his Catholic beliefs to a conservative Catholic University audience.
For all those who claim to be Constitutionalist:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Quartermaster| 2.22.12 @ 4:31PM
The leftist raving about Santorum and Satan is all of a piece in trying to demonize the man. I'm not a Roman Catholic, but I certainly agree that Satan is attacking the institutions of this country. The left are really Satan's useful idiots.
Tom| 2.22.12 @ 4:38PM
It's becuase modern secularists despise anything to do Biblical Christianity and demand that public policy be based solely on the stupidity of their ideology.
Vern Crisler| 2.22.12 @ 4:38PM
Revelation 20:1-6:
We need not fear Satan. He and his demons have been bound since the end of the redemptive-historical events of the 1st century AD.
More to be feared are those who claim to do good in the name of God, for they make a hell on earth. (Progressives, Socialists, Inquisitors, Islamicists, et al.)
Clint| 2.22.12 @ 8:26PM
More To Be Feared By The Atheist Communists.
Read The Black Book Of Communism.
Rob| 2.22.12 @ 5:05PM
Most Episcopalians are unlikely to interpret "Satan" as a literal fallen angel, intent on wreaking destruction in the world, whereas Santorum evidently does. Most Democrats and thus most of the "mainstream" media cheer what Ann Coulter referred to as the "demonic" mob, whereas Santorum does not. For Republicans, this may lead to concerns as to whether his religious rhetoric might hinder his appeal in November to independents. His choice of a running mate could make a big difference. I'd suggest consideration of Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, who could help unify the GOP since she was a prominent Romney supporter and who might help offset any controversy that might be made re Santorum's remarks about women, especially if Obama makes a switch and runs with Hillary Clinton.
Mark J. Goluskin | 2.23.12 @ 12:49AM
Rob, I fear that you are right about many Episcopalians and the view of Satan. But THIS Epsicopalian, some days barely, still believes that Satan is a powerful, evil being. I am glad that a Roman Catholic like Mr. Santorum believes that as well. In reality, I think that many RCs are not all that comfortable talking about Satan any more than the average Episcopalian.
Oldefarte| 2.22.12 @ 5:16PM
All praise and glory given to Him who has risen onto the steps of the White House, slaying the Devil Republicans from on high in his ascension. Forgive us and bless us oh Great One for we conservatives have sinned unto you oh lord and master:
http://youtu.be/fVa5B_TFRFM
k. bourg| 2.22.12 @ 5:50PM
Jesus believed there was a literal Satan, He was tempted by him. Funny how people who just pretend to be christians, (like Barak), go unmolested by the press, and the first time anyone actually expresses any genuine belief in what has been accepted by all christians Throughout time(ie, the scriptures!) they are made to look like lunatics.
Drek| 2.22.12 @ 6:03PM
Which is why I said that Santorum could hit political pay dirt by using this as a method of prying open the door and forcing a discussion of the particulars and specifics of obama's belief system.
But I don't think he has the wit or will to do it.
Drek| 2.22.12 @ 6:01PM
I thought you went to Georgetown.
Quin| 2.22.12 @ 7:34PM
I did. And I majored in Theology (and in Government... double major). So I'm sort of Anglo-Catholic....
Mark J. Goluskin | 2.23.12 @ 12:51AM
Or as I like to say, High Church in worship, Low Church in theology. And thanks for highlighting that even in the current BCP, there is mention of. . .SATAN! However, the next prayer book, Lord help us!
David W| 2.22.12 @ 6:49PM
Yes, I share the concerns of some of those above about any Presidential candidate who uses faith to guide his decisions. After all, we wouldn't want someone who believes that lying is bad (unlike Obama), who believes that adultery is bad (unlike Clinton/Edwards/Kennedy), who believes it is wrong to steal (unlike Obama wanting to take from the rich and give to the "other rich"), who believes it is wrong to covet what someone else has (unlike Obama's continued war cries against the rich and successful). God forbid we would have a president who lives by the 10 commandments or who subscribes to the "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" (unlike the no-longer angry Michelle Obama and her vacation after vacation after vacation at taxpayer expense).
We all know that Obama doesn't really believe in that religious junk (being raised a muslim and spending 20 years in a black racist's church). Let's vote for Obama again - I'd rather have an agnostic socialist who wants to destroy this country while enriching his cronies.
Stan| 2.22.12 @ 7:25PM
Of course when Mitt says something like severly it's the biggest issue ever.
k. bourg| 2.22.12 @ 8:08PM
Maybe Mitt should bring up the "Mark of Cain" issue with our president.
Anthony M| 2.22.12 @ 9:01PM
I remember when the Episcopalians were Christians, but that was a long, long time ago. They are now a wierd sort of civic organization for feminists and homosexuals. What fat Henry did begin.
Oldefarte| 2.23.12 @ 1:39PM
The following is an example of why Santorum just may have a point in his comments regarding this country and Satan:
'....Lesbian Federal Worker Wins Case for Spousal Benefits Thursday, February 23, 2012 07:44 AM....The government cannot deny health benefits to the wife of a lesbian court employee by relying on the 1996 law that bars government recognition of same-sex unions, a federal judge has ruled.In Wednesday's ruling on a San Francisco case, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White said the government's refusal to furnish health insurance to Karen Golinski's wife is unjustified because the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex married couples.Golinski, a staff lawyer for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has been trying to secure spousal benefits for her wife, Amy Cunninghis, since shortly after the couple got married during the brief window in 2008 when same-sex marriages were legal in California. Her boss, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, approved her request, but the Office of Personnel Management ordered Golinski's insurer not to process her application.After Golinski sued, the Department of Justice originally opposed her in court but changed course last year after President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder said they would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act."The Court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law ... by, without substantial justification or rational basis, refusing to recognize her lawful marriage to prevent provision of health insurance coverage to her spouse," White wrote in a 43-page decision that marks the third time in less than two years a federal court has declared the act unconstitutional.When White heard the case in December, the head of the Justice Department's civil division, Tony West, joined her lawyers from the gay rights legal group Lambda Legal in arguing on Golinski's behalf, leaving the job of defending DOMA to a lawyer hired by a House of Representatives group. The lawyers representing the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group convened by House Speaker John Boehner did not immediately respond to an email to their offices sent after business hours Wednesday.Former speaker and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a statement saying White's ruling demonstrated "that the House is not united in this case, that the BLAG lawyers do not speak for Congress, and that BLAG's intervention remains a waste of taxpayer resources."Wednesday's ruling is the latest in an unbroken string of judicial setbacks for the Defense of Marriage Act, which Congress approved when states first started considering allowing gay and lesbian couples to get married. The law defines marriage as a union between a man and woman, and prohibits the government from granting benefits such as Social Security and Medicaid to same-sex couples.A federal judge in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004, ruled in July 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution. A year later, 20 of the 24 bankruptcy judges based in Los Angeles ruled that the act violated the civil rights of a married gay couple who were denied the right to file a shared bankruptcy plan.Last week, the Obama administration said it was extending its decision to stop defending the law to issues affecting actively serving military personnel and veterans in same-sex relationships.In ordering the government to allow Golinski to enroll her wife in a family health plan, White rejected all of the arguments the House group advanced in defense of DOMA, such as that it was necessary to foster stable unions among men and women, and for Congress to act slowly on an issue on which the public remains divided.White's decision "acknowledges that DOMA violates the Constitution and that my marriage to Amy is equal to those marriages of my heterosexual colleagues," Golinski said. "This decision is a huge step toward equality."....'