# Rick Santorum Has Never Read the Bible **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 22, 2005, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954 "2005-05-22T14:51:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954/1 "2005-05-22T14:51:56Z")
Although disagree with Sen. Sentorum on just about everything (in this latest interview, he affirms that gay marriage does indeed threaten his own marriage: “Yes, absolutely. It threatens my marriage. It threatens all marriages. It threatens the traditional values of this country”), I at least gave him the credit of thinking, well, he’s a sincere “good Catholic,” trying to do what he thinks is genuinely right according to his religious beliefs. Then this, in today’s _Times_ magazine: > [@](#): > > Santorum is not a reader of Scripture–“I’ve never read the Bible cover to cover; maybe I should have . . . I’m a Catholic, so I’m not a Biblical scholar. I’m not someone who has verses he can pop out. That’s not how I interact with the faith.” It’s not easy to strike _me_ speechless, but danged if that didn’t do it. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954/2 "2005-05-22T14:54:23Z")
Well, I’VE never read it cover to cover, and I’d be willing to bet that not many have. However, saying that he’s not a Biblical scholar because he’s Catholic is only going to give the anti-Catholic fundies fuel. ---
**Author:** ![DaddyTimesTwo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f07891/32.png) [@DaddyTimesTwo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DaddyTimesTwo)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954/3 "2005-05-22T15:03:55Z")
That’s the pretty standard Roman Catholic response. We don’t need to read the Bible, that’s what we have all those priests for. They read it, tell us what we believe, then we go play bingo, drink beer and gamble. And I’m only partially facetious there. In my religion classes in grade school (parochial, of course), I remember assignments to read verses and offer an interpretation. In high school, we had more rigorous curriculum, but it had a definite historicalk perspective, since tradition is so important to the RCC, and I don’t rememer ever actually reading the bible. So, it isn’t just Santorum, it’s every Roamn Catholic who isn’t in a theology graduate program, or just interested on their own. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954/4 "2005-05-22T15:04:01Z")
So he’s not a biblical scholar, but that never stopped him from spewing his bigotry while claiming his “authority” came from the Bible. I wonder how many quotes would apply to him specifically, as in “Hey Santorum. stop judging and shut the hell up”. He isn’t just giving free fuel to antiCatholics, he is giving plenty to many Catholics too (like me fer instance). I also fail to see how what someone else does could threaten his marriage, unless he is a closet queen desparately fighting temptation. If that indeed were the case, then someone should out him. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954/5 "2005-05-22T15:19:40Z")
If he read the whole Bible, he might see that it contradicts itself, and hence cannot be the inerrent word fo God. Can’t have that happen. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954/6 "2005-05-22T15:23:08Z")
No, lots of people have read the whole Bible and have reconciled any perceived contradictions to their own satisfaction. It does seem to me, however, that the onus falls on both sides — whoever would declare the Bible to be the complete and inerrant word of God ought to have read every word, and so ought whoever would declare that it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954/7 "2005-05-22T15:29:54Z")
I agree with you **Lib** , anyone who wants to preach that the bible is right, should have read it. I have read what I like to call ‘chunks’. I have no reason to convince anyone to believe or disbelieve. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954/8 "2005-05-22T15:44:17Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > It does seem to me, however, that the onus falls on both sides — whoever would declare the Bible to be the complete and inerrant word of God ought to have read every word, and so ought whoever would declare that it isn’t. I disagree that a person saying it’s not inerrant needs to read the whole thing. The idea that the book is the inerrant word of a supernatural being is the extraordinary claim, not that it isn’t, and hence has the burden of proof. It’s up to the inerrancy people to demonstrate what other biblical text shows why a contradiction is not a contradiction. It’s perfectly reasonable for a person to bring up something that looks like a contradiction without reading every word, and expect the people making the extraordinary “word of God” claim to back up their assertion and show why it isn’t a contradiction. Have you read the Koran? If not, as a result do you make no claims about it being the word of God or not? I haven’t read Moby Dick. If a person claims it’s the word of God, are you saying I cannot reasonably say that isn’t before reading it? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954/9 "2005-05-22T15:45:18Z")
With or without any Bible at all, Santorum would still be a pissant putrescent pustulent pile of panther puke in my book. With no Bible, he would just latch onto something else as his “authority” to spew shit. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954/10 "2005-05-22T16:41:15Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > With or without any Bible at all, Santorum would still be a pissant putrescent pustulent pile of panther puke in my book. With no Bible, he would just latch onto something else as his “authority” to spew shit. Exactly. A politician will use whatever is most expedient. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954/11 "2005-05-22T16:41:46Z")
This is an aspect of Catholicism that I thought had fallen by the wayside in recent years. Traditionally, this is what the big split between Catholics and Protestants was all about. Catholics had a Church Hierarchy to interpret the religion (as defined, supposedly, by the bible) and disseminate it to the masses via the Masses (sorry, I couldn’t resist!). For the laymen, it was predominantly a religion of mysteries. The Protestants maintained that, through reading the bible and praying, lay people were capable of establishing and maintaining a personal relationship with God, and they didn’t need the middle-man. Until fairly recently, I believe that bible study was highly unusual among lay-people among the Catholics. But in recent years (say, the past 20-30), just as the Fundamentalist movement has grown within the Protestant community, it has also grown within the Catholic community, at least in the US. Now Catholic churches have bible study groups and charismatic movements. I’ve sometimes joked that if you wanted a good traditional Catholic service, you’d better go to the Episcopals - they’re not in Latin, but they’ve retained a lot of the beauty and Mystery of the earlier Catholic services. I’m surprised Santorum hasn’t read the bible cover to cover. He’s young enough that this has been available to him through his church, and he certainly seems to have the fundamentalist leanings that would propel him in that direction. Oh, and **Liberal** - what **Revtim** said. Your extraordinary claims. Your burden of proof. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954/12 "2005-05-22T16:45:36Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > and so ought whoever would declare that it isn’t. Why? As soon as you’ve found one error, the whole this clearly isn’t inerrant and hence you don’t need to keep reading. A single counterexample disproves the hypothesis. You may be right that as a matter of principle I ought to know what I’m rejecting before I reject it. Fine. (Though it seems to me that if I skipped Obadiah and II Timothy it wouldn’t be a big deal.) As a matter of logic, however, you’re just wrong. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954/13 "2005-05-22T16:51:53Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > As a matter of logic, however, you’re just wrong. Oh, crikey, did you have to say that? Now **Lib** will crank out a three-page rebuttal pointing out in excruciating detail how utterly impeccable his logical chops are. :eek: 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954/14 "2005-05-22T16:58:40Z")
> [@Oy!](#): > > Oh, and **Liberal** - what **Revtim** said. Your extraordinary claims. Your burden of proof. Nonsense. If A is an extraordinary claim, then so is ~A. Due respect to Carl Sagan, the statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is itself a fallacy of ambiguity, and may itself be called an extraordinary claim. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954/15 "2005-05-22T16:59:06Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Well, I’VE never read it cover to cover, and I’d be willing to bet that not many have. But **Guin** , you’re also not using your religion to try and influence the way the whole country lives (at least, if you are, you’re keeping mum about it!). But I am also shocked: here’s a guy who’s been a lifelong Catholic, goes to church every single day, will not work on Sunday and is trying to remake the U.S. government in the face of Catholicism. Catholicism seems to be a huge part of his life, and that of his wife and children. So don’t you think he’d be at least _curious_ to read this book that dictates his whole existence? I mean, what’s keeping him? Take a damn week’s vacation and read it, it’s only one book! (Well, two, if you’re gonna read the Old Testament, too.) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954/16 "2005-05-22T17:04:00Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Why? As soon as you’ve found one error, the whole this clearly isn’t inerrant and hence you don’t need to keep reading. A single counterexample disproves the hypothesis. You may be right that as a matter of principle I ought to know what I’m rejecting before I reject it. Fine. (Though it seems to me that if I skipped Obadiah and II Timothy it wouldn’t be a big deal.) As a matter of logic, however, you’re just wrong. To spare EddyTeddyFreddy a frightening ordeal, I’ll say simply that you’re mistaken, and are confusing a generalized claim about specifics with a specific claim about generalities. For example, suppose a compendium says in Book A, Chapter B that “X”. Now suppose “X” is false. But suppose that Book Y, Chapter Z says that “X” in Book A, Chapter B was an example of a false statement. Is the compendium accurate? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954/17 "2005-05-22T17:05:58Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > But **Guin** , you’re also not using your religion to try and influence the way the whole country lives (at least, if you are, you’re keeping mum about it!). > > But I am also shocked: here’s a guy who’s been a lifelong Catholic, goes to church every single day, will not work on Sunday and is trying to remake the U.S. government in the face of Catholicism. Catholicism seems to be a huge part of his life, and that of his wife and children. > > So don’t you think he’d be at least _curious_ to read this book that dictates his whole existence? I mean, what’s keeping him? Take a damn week’s vacation and read it, it’s only one book! (Well, two, if you’re gonna read the Old Testament, too.) There’s a lot more than two. > **[Biblical canon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible)** > > A biblical canon, also called canon of scripture, is a set of texts (or "books") which a particular Jewish or Christian religious community regards as authoritative scripture. The English word canon comes from the Greek κανών, meaning "rule" or "measuring stick". Christians were the first to use the term in reference to scripture, but Eugene Ulrich regards the notion as Jewish. > Most of the canons listed below are considered by adherents to be "closed" (i.e., books cannot be added or removed), ... ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954/18 "2005-05-22T17:10:28Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > If A is an extraordinary claim, then so is ~A. That’s a pretty extraordinary claim in itself. If someone present a new chemical claiming it has anti-gravity properties, that claim could easily be considered extraordinary. The ~A claim, that the chemical does _not_ have anti-gravity properties, is pretty darn ordinary. Or does this only apply to theology? ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954/19 "2005-05-22T17:17:34Z")
I am Satan. I am not Satan. **Liberal** , are both of these are extraordinary statements? In order to refute that I’m _not_ Satan, do I require extraordinary evidence? This can’t be what you’re saying, right? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954/20 "2005-05-22T17:25:48Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > But I am also shocked: here’s a guy who’s been a lifelong Catholic, goes to church every single day, will not work on Sunday and is trying to remake the U.S. government in the face of Catholicism. Catholicism seems to be a huge part of his life, and that of his wife and children. Yeah, but as was mentioned, Catholicism says you don’t have to read the bible to be a good Catholic/good Christian. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rick-santorum-has-never-read-the-bible/304954.md?page=2)