Politician Pro Tip: Don’t Diss Nuns

An interview of freshman Rep. Scott Tipton by liberal blog ThinkProgress last Wednesday at the University of Denver presidential debate has produced more than its share of eyebrow-raising comments. On Thursday, there was Tipton’s hilarious “our specifics will be general in nature” gaffe. And just in time for the weekend, here’s Scott Tipton’s view of Mother Teresa!

Okay, not Mother Teresa personally, but you get the idea:

[THINKPROGRESS]: What did you think about the nuns who are going out and barnstorming across the country, campaigning against the Ryan budget?

TIPTON: I think one of the important things is that we often get people that want to try and divide. [Original emphasis] No one, Republican or Democrat, wants to hurt any individual.

[THINKPROGRESS]: Do you think they’re being divisive?

TIPTON: I think pointing to this without the understanding apparently that we’ve got to be able to pay for those different programs. So how can we best deliver them in the most efficient way? What’s the best way to really address needs and concerns that people have right now? Wouldn’t it be better to actually create an environment where they could get a job and provide for their families? That’s what we’re pushing hard on.

Because the first thing Jesus thought about when it was time to feed the poor is who’s paying!

Now usually, especially when you’re a politician running for re-election in heavily Catholic areas of the state like Pueblo and the San Luis Valley, you preface your remarks about those divisive nuns with something about how you, you know, still like nuns.

But to Tipton, if they’re not toeing the Ryan Plan line, they’re just hippies with funny smocks.

32 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. When they put men in charge of the Women Religious and accused those same nuns of committing “radical feminism,” which is apparently a great crime in the eyes of said Vatican. So, I guess our boy Tipton is on Team Pope.

    I’ll stick with Team Nun, myself.

  2. Barron X says:

    ColoPols [the Guvs + this community] is generally anti-Catholic, anti-Christian and anti-Jesus.


    deny it; doesn’t change the fact.  

    but you have no compunction about lecturing me on what Jesus really meant.  




    Jesus is revolted by your suggestion that the state, with the power to execute or imprison, ought to be forcing anyone to give of their wealth and possessions to provide for others.  

    Don’t misunderstand: Jesus loves the idea of us helping our brothers and sisters.  It is an outward manifestation of true charity.  caritas.  love.  Jesus himself.  

    But the real beauty is in the voluntary giving, not in the actual transfer of material.  

    Without that voluntary component, there is no Grace, and the transfer is devoid of spiritual meaning.  


    Your religion is your religion.  I point out it’s hypocrisy and inconsistency, but I don’t ridicule it.  But you sure could, if only you recognized it per se.  

    • Lurker19 says:

      a practicing Christian)*, I find that you having the gall, the hubris, to think that you speak for Jesus, Barron, is worse than anything Tadpole or LB or Gopher ever came up with.

      *Not sayin’ you’re not a Christian, but I am sayin’ your brand of Christianity is different from the one I’ve been taught.

      • Barron X says:

        Interesting, a type of Christian that doesn’t speak for Jesus.  Never heard of that type before.

        Is that like the type that doesn’t employ Jesus’ hands at the end of his arms to do the work of Jesus ?  

        • Gray in Mountains says:

          I was raised Quaker and to let my life show who I am. BTW, Quakers are one xtian religion that does not baptize. May be others. After being born again several times I was unhappy that I was unable to be perfect. My mother told me that as long as I tried to live like Jesus that would be adequate. So, that is what I attempt. Like you BX I volunteer at a community meals program that is within an Episcopal church 3 times a week. That meals program is the charity I have contributed the most to for the last 11 years. It may be this year as well but I won’t check the total until I’m doing my taxes. I have not attended any worship service that I was not forced to attend, at home until I was 15 and moved out and then forced to in boot camp.

          As I’ve said before here I consider myself an apathist. I don’t care whether there is or isn’t a higher power. If someone, which happens more frequently than I wish, tries to talk with me about religion or spirituality that is what I tell them. When missionaries visit my door I ask them to leave and please stay away. I think it is even ridiculous to agree that humans, or anything else, has spiritual needs. Seems like I am able to satisfy all the spiritual needs for all the mammals in my life though I do have one dog that looks at the mountains and the sky much as I do, with a great appreciation for their beauty and significance. She is my favorite dog of all time.

          I’ll vote for an atheist, agnostic, apathist or religious dude or dudette if they are trying to do what I think is important. If one of them said “the govt should feed all the hungry, we should not have to rely on volunteers like BX and GTM and hope someone will replace them when they die” I’d vote for that dude or dudette.

    • PERA hopeful says:

      Jesus is revolted by your suggestion that the state, with the power to execute or imprison, ought to be forcing anyone to give of their wealth and possessions to provide for others.

      You might want to go back and re-read that whole “render unto Caesar” passage.

      • Lurker19 says:

        that forbids Caesar to render any of it back.

      • Barron X says:

        I think it continues

        “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

        If you understand that Caesar then used those monies to care for widows and orphans, then I have a different understanding.  

        He collected taxes and tribute for his own use.  Mostly to wage wars.  I don’t think he was into the whole “security net for the dispossessed” thing.  

        Jesus meant don’t fight city hall, the powers that be, over things that don’t matter in the long run.  

        The Roman government was not seen by Jews of that time as an instrument of stability, security, peace, goodness or light.

        Think of the US Army in Khost Province today, blowing up homes and coming in the night to kidnap at random.  

        One of us is really off base.   I suggest that you talk to your Pastor to get her or his opinion on which one of us that is.    

        • PERA hopeful says:

          Jesus said to render unto Caesar EVEN THOUGH Caesar was taking their wealth and possessions to oppress them and build fortune for the empire.  Jesus said pay your taxes EVEN THOUGH they are taken from you by force and used for unacceptable purposes.  If Jesus did not tell his people to rebel against paying taxes for those purposes, then why on earth would he be “revolted” by requiring people to pay taxes to feed the hungry and provide medical care to old folks?

          Jesus said over and over that people should not build up treasure for themselves; they should not value their possessions above God and the needy among them; that they should sell all they have and give the proceeds to the poor if they would follow him.  He told his followers that they shouldn’t worry about money and things because God will provide what they need.

          Barron, what is in the Bible that leads you to believe that Jesus would be revolted by or even care in the slightest that the government would require people to pay taxes to provide for the poor, sick, and elderly?

          It sounds like you are saying that God is pleased when people give voluntarily (and I agree), and that Jesus taught people to give to the needy in order to store up treasures in heaven.  In other words, Jesus wants people to give to the poor in order to benefit spiritually from that practice.  However, I believe that Jesus also wants us to give to the poor BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR AND NEED HELP.  If Jesus’s teachings were motivated by a desire to improve the lot of the poor and needy, why would he be revolted by a government whose elected officials passed laws mandating taxes for that purpose?

          Now, if I’m misunderstanding and you are really saying that Jesus would be revolted by the state taking people’s wealth and possessions and using them to fund

          the US Army in Khost Province today, blowing up homes and coming in the night to kidnap at random

          then we are in agreement.

          • Barron X says:

            imagine that, a smart guy like me not getting what is pretty clear on a second reading.  Sorry.  

            The thing I find most offensive (and then project onto Jesus)

            is how the mechanism of caring for the poor that depends on the government compelling the giving

            is how it doesn’t have a way for people to get Grace for giving.  They don’t give so that others, less fortunate, might live better, but they give so as to avoid negative consequences.  

            Grace is a lifesaver.  Even if there is no afterlife and eternal reward, or even a God like the one I believe in, Grace gives a body the peace to, say, delay offing oneself another day, just to see the sun rise again.  

            But if all I’ve done is give out of fear of the taxman or the jailer, I don’t get that blessing.  

            If you don’t mind translating my words into your lexicon, I’m more comfortable talking in terms of my Catholic frame of reference:

            made in the image of God, it is my truest nature to be loving and charitable and giving.  

            But that gets covered up in the daily grind, and sometimes doesn’t shine through at all.  

            I swim in an ocean of human aches and needs, for food, yes, and for someone to listen.  

            If I can think I am discharging the duties of taking up the cross by merely paying my taxes, which I do anyway out of fear of the instruments of state compunction, I am not really giving to the poor.  I am giving to Leviathan, who then gives to them.  

            So, Team Obama punches their tickets to pass the pearly gates on my dime, and I get nothing transcendental in the transaction.  

            I guess its late, and I have a huge phone call in 3 hours.  thnx 4 UR patience.  

    • and unto God what is God’s.

      Do you think you’re the only one here who knows your Bible? When asked directly about taxes, Jesus was in favor. He was hardly a great fan of “wealth” or “possessions” at all, in fact.

      Or what of this one?

      Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world-the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions-is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

      So then, perhaps the tax collector who loves the things of the world will not abide forever, but neither will he who so loves the things of the world that he allows his pride in possessions to make him uncharitable.

      Or this:

      Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

      22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

      23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

      Yes, I’m quite sure Jesus would counsel his followers to give voluntarily, and I am equally sure that He never offered an eternal reward or treasure in Heaven simply for paying your taxes. But He was not offended by taxation. He was greatly offended at the hoarding of possessions and trust in riches.

      If it is wrong to compel another to give by the threat of worldly imprisonment, then should not churches be prohibited from charging tithes? To deny a person the opportunity to practice their religion unless they pay a tithe is to imply the threat of eternal damnation, for believers in that religion. Based on Biblical doctrine, a man may suffer imprisonment or execution–as many Saints did–and yet enter into Heaven. But one who does not meet his religious obligations and do his duty to God will not receive eternal reward. A church’s threat is, therefore, much greater.

      • Barron X says:

        this model of government you idolize, that is all things to all people,

        that is new.  

        • I believe Jesus had something to say about idols, too.

          I’m merely offended that someone with your obvious religious expertise thinks that the rest of us don’t know that Jesus was asked about taxation and had nothing whatsoever to say about it that in any way resembled your interpretation of His views on the matter. That’s one of the most best-known stories in the Bible. When you claim Jesus would be offended by taxes, you’re speaking against the word of Jesus.

          Personally, I believe in the separation of church and state, because I do not think a government is capable of compelling religious devotion or obedience to God. My views on government are only loosely related to my views on spirituality. I’m complaining about you–who clearly know better–incorrectly ascribing your own political beliefs to Jesus.  

          • Lurker19 says:

            And to think I used to try to be nicer to BX because he was a Christian.

          • Barron X says:

            PC, if I haven’t made it clear before, I’m a Catholic, not a good Catholic.  

            The only religion I consider myself expert on is my unique, twisted niche confession that derives from Jesus, through Paul, but doesn’t fully embrace the whole Marian/ Patmos/ magical visions milieu.  

            It’s hard for some to see, but the Catholic church has done so much good, way more than the bad.  We wouldn’t have any of this Christianity stuff at all today without it.  

            And it does have mechanisms for self-correction.  


            N E way,

            I didn’t mean to say that Jesus was against paying taxes.  That’s a whole nuther issue.  

            I meant to say (and going back to re-read, I think I did say) that the problem is with the all-things-to-all-people state taking over the responsibility for caring for the poor, so that we – personally – don’t have any stake in their welfare.  

            The human connection is sanitized and severed, and the personal choice to sacrifice so that someone else benefits is also taken away.  

            If you focus on the recipient, and on them getting food or shelter, then you have missed the spiritual component of this economic transaction.  

            The real action is at the point of giving.  

            Grace is “earned,” if I can say it that way, when I give what I don’t have to give.  

        • Duke Coxdukeco1 says:

          that is all things to all people

          did she say this? I missed it.

  3. GiveEmHellHarry says:

    Sal Pace even has an ad with his family saying Grace.  Scott Tipton is prone to gaffes which has turned this into a really close race.  

    Hopefully the DCCC and House Majority PAC and other groups will come in with a big ad buy to put Sal over the top.  

  4. ClubTwitty says:

    How many Polsters can dance on a pixel?

  5. Barron X says:

    DC: Do the Church’s social justice teachings require Catholics to support government welfare programs?

    Sheridan: Not that I’m not aware of. I think we recognize that the government can and should do things for people, especially people who are in great need. But really the obligation is for us as individuals, as Catholics, as believers, to be charitable toward our neighbor. I don’t know that that extends to supporting government welfare programs.

    Read more: http://www.gazette.com/article

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.