NewsIs Rick Santorum's Religious Extremism a Deal Breaker for Voters?
Thread starterThomasT
Start date
Click For Summary
Rick Santorum is a prominent figure in the GOP race, attracting both support and criticism. His strong Evangelical backing helped him perform well in Iowa, but opinions vary on his viability as a candidate. Many view him as a fundamentalist Christian extremist, particularly due to his stances on issues like contraception and abortion, including his controversial comments suggesting that rape victims should "make the best out of a bad situation." Critics express concern over his perceived anti-science views, particularly his characterization of scientists as amoral, which they argue undermines the ethical considerations inherent in scientific research. The media's preference for candidates like Romney adds to the skepticism about Santorum's long-term prospects. Overall, discussions reflect a deep divide on his candidacy, with some viewing him as a serious contender while others see him as a flash in the pan due to his extreme views.
Why do you think anti-intellectualism plays to the base of the republican party?
I have no idea. It seems like a trend that is well-established and is bound to continue as long as it bears fruit. Does some segment of the voting public want candidates that are no more educated and skilled than themselves? I have a hard time understanding why, because I would love to have candidates that are so smart and skilled that I would love to have a chance to vote for them. A candidate that has a hard time elucidating policy issues or has to resort to jeans-and-flannel-shirt photo-ops with "oh-shucks" ads has no business running for high office.
I have no idea. It seems like a trend that is well-established and is bound to continue as long as it bears fruit. Does some segment of the voting public want candidates that are no more educated and skilled than themselves? I have a hard time understanding why, because I would love to have candidates that are so smart and skilled that I would love to have a chance to vote for them. A candidate that has a hard time elucidating policy issues or has to resort to jeans-and-flannel-shirt photo-ops with "oh-shucks" ads has no business running for high office.
I've often wondered if conservatives have a high need for closure. The world is very complicated, and it has a great deal of uncertainty. But the conservative message offers a very simplistic view of the world. So the message that it's all Satan's fault may provide closure to people afraid of the continuously changing world.
#273
ThomasT
529
0
SixNein said:
Why do you think anti-intellectualism plays to the base of the republican party?
I sense the same thing (ie., that the base of the Republican party is essentialy anti-intellectual) from my experience. Maybe it's not generally the case. I don't know.
"At one appearance here, he said the idea of schools run by the federal government or by state governments was “anachronistic.” Mr. Santorum did not say public schools were a bad idea, and he said that there was a role for government help in education.
But it was the latest in a series of comments by the former Pennsylvania senator — who is tied in polls in the critical Ohio and Michigan primary contests — suggesting that he takes a dim view of public schooling. He and his wife home-schooled their children.
For the first 150 years, most presidents home-schooled their children at the White House, he said. “Where did they come up that public education and bigger education bureaucracies was the rule in America? Parents educated their children, because it’s their responsibility to educate their children.”
“Yes the government can help,” Mr. Santorum added. “But the idea that the federal government should be running schools, frankly much less that the state government should be running schools, is anachronistic. It goes back to the time of industrialization of America when people came off the farms where they did home-school or have the little neighborhood school, and into these big factories, so we built equal factories called public schools. And while those factories as we all know in Ohio and Pennsylvania have fundamentally changed, the factory school has not.”
Historically, state and local governments have been responsible for public schooling. According to the Department of Education, the federal government contributes almost 11 percent of the cost of elementary and secondary education, financing intended to compel districts to enforce standards to help disadvantaged children and ensure students with disabilities receive equal education. This year, Republican candidates have called for a cutback in this formula, which has had bipartisan support for decades, saying they would give block grants to states and local districts while repealing federal requirements. "
Last edited by a moderator:
#275
WhoWee
219
0
turbo said:
It seems that anti-intellectualism plays well to the Republican base. He's the man to beat right now.
I'm a bit confused about Santorum's supposed "anti-intellectualism" and it's appeal to the base of the Republican Party. Can you please define this base further and explain how wanting to keep the Federal Government out of the local school system (Santorum's position) is "anti-intellectualism"?
#276
SixNein
Gold Member
122
20
WhoWee said:
I'm a bit confused about Santorum's supposed "anti-intellectualism" and it's appeal to the base of the Republican Party. Can you please define this base further and explain how wanting to keep the Federal Government out of the local school system (Santorum's position) is "anti-intellectualism"?
Santorum made an argument that Academia is under the influence of Satanism, and it was responsible for destroying society.
I don't know how much more anti-intellectual you can get then that.
#277
WhoWee
219
0
SixNein said:
Santorum made an argument that Academia is under the influence of Satanism, and it was responsible for destroying society.
I don't know how much more anti-intellectual you can get then that.
I'd like to hear from the person that made the comment.
However, why don't we stick to his exact quote - from Gokul's post - Santorum making some type of philosophical argument (I'll assume related to teaching evolution?).
"He was successful. He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions. The place where he was, in my mind, the most successful and first successful was in academia. He understood pride of smart people. He attacked them at their weakest, that they were, in fact, smarter than everybody else and could come up with something new and different. Pursue new truths, deny the existence of truth, play with it because they're smart. And so academia, a long time ago, fell."
Perhaps it would be intellectually honest to keep his comments in context - who was he speaking to, what was the format/setting, what was the topic of discussion - rather than jump to a conclusion?
OK I admit that the website itself is clearly biased but it has santorum's exact quote (including in a video). He never mentions evolution, and immediately after the quote you posted says (emphasis mine)
And you say “what could be the impact of academia falling?” Well, I would have the argument that the other structures that I’m going to talk about here had root of their destruction because of academia. Because what academia does is educate the elites in our society, educates the leaders in our society, particularly at the college level. And they were the first to fall.
And so what we saw this domino effect, once the colleges fell and those who were being education in our institutions, the next was the church
He's not just talking about arguing about evolution, he's talking about how the arrogance of academics was the fatal flaw that is destroying the very ethos of America
I've often wondered if conservatives have a high need for closure. The world is very complicated, and it has a great deal of uncertainty. But the conservative message offers a very simplistic view of the world. So the message that it's all Satan's fault may provide closure to people afraid of the continuously changing world.
It would be more accurate to say a segment of the conservative population have a high need for closure - specifically religious conservatives. The Protestant movement was, among other things, a product of the printing press that made Bibles common enough that a person could read and interpret for themselves what the Bible meant (as opposed to the Catholic religion, which is much more hierarchial, relying on interpretations made by the church leadership). Printed words that can't change are much more static than interpretations which can change over time as new leaders take control.
There's another, larger segment of the population as a whole that feels a little uncomfortable with the idea of 'truths' constantly changing over time as more is learned (granted, the 'truths' are really just the current state of understanding).
You could say the same thing about opponents of the death penalty (usually liberals) as you do about conservatives, since one of the arguments about the death penalty is that people are convicted beyond the shadow of a doubt with scientific evidence, only to have the science disproven and/or changed.
That really has more to do with the imperfect relationship between science and the legal system. In the legal system, proven scientific evidence really means the science was admitted in at least one court case; not that the science was really sound or that the evidence properly applied the science (Compositional analysis of bullet lead, http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Willingham_Hurst_Report.pdf ). As more research is done, the science behind a lot of forensic evidence changes and there's no guarantee investigation procedures change in a timely manner to accommodate changes, some forensic evidence is admitted with the limitations in the current state of the science ignored, and some "science" admitted in court is simple crack-pottery that at least one lawyer managed to get admitted.
You could also say the same thing about the abortion debate - in fact both sides choose arbitrary dividing lines simply because it's too hard to define any kind of defining dividing line between life and human consciousness based on current science. In fact, when change is gradual, as in a developing embryo, any dividing line winds up being kind of arbitrary when the differences on either side of the line are so small. (In my personal opinion, you could establish a dividing line that's safely before the development of human consciousness without taking it to the point of abolishing birth control or early term abortions, but that's just me.)
Whenever you make the jump from pure research to applied science in almost any area affecting personal lives, the uncertainty leaves many people either wishing for simpler answers or proclaiming no definitive answer is ever possible - not just conservatives.
Last edited by a moderator:
#280
mheslep
Gold Member
362
719
SixNein said:
Santorum made an argument that Academia is under the influence of Satanism, and it was responsible for destroying society.
I don't know how much more anti-intellectual you can get then that.
Academia is far from the beginning and end of intellectualism.
Academia is far from the beginning and end of intellectualism.
Yes but when the argument is that academia fell because smart people are too prideful and hence more vulnerable to Satan than your average American...
#282
MarcoD
He's a politician. Whatever he says doesn't need to be true as long as it generates sufficient noise and identifies him as 'one of us' to a large enough part of the public.
I am not sure even debating the arguments make sense therefor. (Should be read as: I gave up in my country.)
I see it a lot in my country these days, I don't like it, but it is how it is.
For the first 150 years, most presidents home-schooled their children at the White House, he said. “Where did they come up that public education and bigger education bureaucracies was the rule in America? Parents educated their children, because it’s their responsibility to educate their children.”
Did Santorum really say that about the first 150 of the nation and presidents. Because I seriously doubt that. I think Santorum is just making stuff up, which is problematic for someone who wants to be the leader of a nation.
If we look at Presidents and various statistics like the dates of birth, age at assumption of presidency, marriage (and date), then we find that most of the presidents were probably older than 40, and had been married for some time, and the kids were probably near or in adulthood by they time these men became president.
Period: 1790-1940 (White House completed around 1800).
Presidents without children
Washington
Madison
Jackson
Polk
Buchanan
Harding
Age of president at assumption of office
Adams - 61 yrs, 125 days
Jefferson - 57 yrs, 325 days
Monroe - 58 yrs, 310 days
Adams, JQ - 57 yrs, 236 days
Van Buren - 54 yrs, 89 days
Harrison - 68 yrs, 23 days
Tyler - 51 yrs, 6 days
Taylor - 64 yrs, 100 days
Fillmore - 50 years, 183 days
Piece - 48 yrs, 101 days
Lincoln - 52 yrs, 20 days
Johnson - 56 yrs, 107 days
Grant - 46 yrs, 311 days
Hayes - 54 yrs, 151 days
Garfield - 59 yrs, 105 days
Arthur - 51 yrs, 349 days
Cleveland - 47 yrs, 351 days
Harrison - 55 yrs, 196 days
McKinely - 54 yrs, 34 days
Roosevelt (T) - 42 yrs, 322 days
Taft - 51 yrs, 34 days
Wilson - 56 yrs, 66 days
Coolidge - 51 yrs, 29 days
Hoover - 54 yrs, 206 days
Roosevelt (F) - 51 yrs, 33 days
Truman - 60 yrs, 339 days
Eisenhower - 62 yrs, 98 days
Code:
President 1st Inaug. 2nd Inaug. Marr'd*
[FONT="Courier New"]George Washington Apr 30, 1789 Mar 4, 1793 1759 30 no kids
John Adams Mar 4, 1797 1764 33
Thomas Jefferson Mar 4, 1801 Mar 4, 1805 1772 29
James Madison Mar 4, 1809 Mar 4, 1813 1794 15 no kids
James Monroe Mar 4, 1817 Mar 5, 1821 1786 31
John Quincy Adams Mar 4, 1825 1797 28
Andrew Jackson Mar 4, 1829 Mar 4, 1833 1791 38 no kids
Martin Van Buren Mar 4, 1837 1807 30
William H. Harrison Mar 4, 1841 1795 46
John Tyler Apr 6, 1841 1813 28 1844 -3
James Knox Polk Mar 4, 1845 1824 21 no kids
Zachary Taylor Mar 5, 1849 1810 39
Millard Fillmore Jul 10, 1850 1826 24 1858 -8
Franklin Pierce Mar 4, 1853 1834 19
James Buchanan Mar 4, 1857 - no kids
Abraham Lincoln Mar 4, 1861 Mar 4, 1865 1842 19
Andrew Johnson Apr 15, 1865 1827 38
Ulysses S. Grant Mar 4, 1869 Mar 4, 1873 1848 21
Rutherford B. Hayes Mar 5, 1877 1852 25
James A. Garfield Mar 4, 1881 1858 23
Chester Arthur Sep 20, 1881 1869 12
Grover Cleveland Mar 4, 1885 Mar 4, 1893 1886 -1
Benjamin Harrison Mar 4, 1889 1853 36 1896 -7
William McKinley Mar 4, 1897 Mar 04, 1901 1871 26
Theodore Roosevelt Sep 14, 1901 Mar 04, 1905 1880 21 1886 15
William Howard Taft Mar 04, 1909 1886 23
Woodrow Wilson Mar 04, 1913 Mar 05, 1917 1885 28 1915 -2
Warren G. Harding Mar 04, 1921 1891 30 no kids
Calvin Coolidge Aug 03, 1923 Mar 04, 1925 1905 18
Herbert Hoover Mar 04, 1929 1899 30
F. D. Roosevelt Mar 04, 1933 Jan 20, 1937 1905 28
Harry S. Truman Apr 12, 1945 Jan 20, 1949 1919 26
Dwight D. Eisenhower Jan 20, 1953 Jan 21, 1957 1916 37
* Year of marriage, followed by years between marriage and first inaug.
#284
Galteeth
69
1
BobG said:
It would be more accurate to say a segment of the conservative population have a high need for closure - specifically religious conservatives. The Protestant movement was, among other things, a product of the printing press that made Bibles common enough that a person could read and interpret for themselves what the Bible meant (as opposed to the Catholic religion, which is much more hierarchial, relying on interpretations made by the church leadership). Printed words that can't change are much more static than interpretations which can change over time as new leaders take control.
There's another, larger segment of the population as a whole that feels a little uncomfortable with the idea of 'truths' constantly changing over time as more is learned (granted, the 'truths' are really just the current state of understanding).
You could say the same thing about opponents of the death penalty (usually liberals) as you do about conservatives, since one of the arguments about the death penalty is that people are convicted beyond the shadow of a doubt with scientific evidence, only to have the science disproven and/or changed.
That really has more to do with the imperfect relationship between science and the legal system. In the legal system, proven scientific evidence really means the science was admitted in at least one court case; not that the science was really sound or that the evidence properly applied the science (Compositional analysis of bullet lead, http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Willingham_Hurst_Report.pdf ). As more research is done, the science beyond a lot of forensic evidence changes and there's no guarantee investigation procedures change in a timely manner to accommodate changes, some forensic evidence is admitted with the limitations in the current state of the science ignored, and some "science" admitted in court is simple crack-pottery that at least one lawyer managed to get admitted.
You could also say the same thing about the abortion debate - in fact both sides choose arbitrary dividing lines simply because it's too hard to define any kind of defining dividing line between life and human consciousness based on current science. In fact, when change is gradual, as in a developing embryo, any dividing line winds up being kind of arbitrary when the differences on either side of the line are so small. (In my personal opinion, you could establish a dividing line that's safely before the development of human consciousness without taking it to the point of abolishing birth control or early term abortions, but that's just me.)
Whenever you make the jump from pure research to applied science in almost any area affecting personal lives, the uncertainty leaves many people either wishing for simpler answers or proclaiming no definitive answer is ever possible - not just conservatives.
It seems to me pretty absurd to base moral positions on "scientific evidence." Morality is always based on a notion of the way things should be, not the way they are The fact that murder has existed for as long as humanity doesn't mean that murder isn't immoral. With the death penalty, it seems like its only morally consistent to say the state has the right to execute people or not. How much crime it statistically does or does not prevent doesn't have any bearing on the morality of the act.
Last edited by a moderator:
#285
WhoWee
219
0
Astronuc said:
Did Santorum really say that about the first 150 of the nation and presidents. Because I seriously doubt that. I think Santorum is just making stuff up, which is problematic for someone who wants to be the leader of a nation.
If we look at Presidents and various statistics like the dates of birth, age at assumption of presidency, marriage (and date), then we find that most of the presidents were probably older than 40, and had been married for some time, and the kids were probably near or in adulthood by they time these men became president.
Period: 1790-1940 (White House completed around 1800).
Presidents without children
Washington
Madison
Jackson
Polk
Buchanan
Harding
Age of president at assumption of office
Adams - 61 yrs, 125 days
Jefferson - 57 yrs, 325 days
Monroe - 58 yrs, 310 days
Adams, JQ - 57 yrs, 236 days
Van Buren - 54 yrs, 89 days
Harrison - 68 yrs, 23 days
Tyler - 51 yrs, 6 days
Taylor - 64 yrs, 100 days
Fillmore - 50 years, 183 days
Piece - 48 yrs, 101 days
Lincoln - 52 yrs, 20 days
Johnson - 56 yrs, 107 days
Grant - 46 yrs, 311 days
Hayes - 54 yrs, 151 days
Garfield - 59 yrs, 105 days
Arthur - 51 yrs, 349 days
Cleveland - 47 yrs, 351 days
Harrison - 55 yrs, 196 days
McKinely - 54 yrs, 34 days
Roosevelt (T) - 42 yrs, 322 days
Taft - 51 yrs, 34 days
Wilson - 56 yrs, 66 days
Coolidge - 51 yrs, 29 days
Hoover - 54 yrs, 206 days
Roosevelt (F) - 51 yrs, 33 days
Truman - 60 yrs, 339 days
Eisenhower - 62 yrs, 98 days
Code:
President 1st Inaug. 2nd Inaug. Marr'd*
[FONT="Courier New"]George Washington Apr 30, 1789 Mar 4, 1793 1759 30 no kids
John Adams Mar 4, 1797 1764 33
Thomas Jefferson Mar 4, 1801 Mar 4, 1805 1772 29
James Madison Mar 4, 1809 Mar 4, 1813 1794 15 no kids
James Monroe Mar 4, 1817 Mar 5, 1821 1786 31
John Quincy Adams Mar 4, 1825 1797 28
Andrew Jackson Mar 4, 1829 Mar 4, 1833 1791 38 no kids
Martin Van Buren Mar 4, 1837 1807 30
William H. Harrison Mar 4, 1841 1795 46
John Tyler Apr 6, 1841 1813 28 1844 -3
James Knox Polk Mar 4, 1845 1824 21 no kids
Zachary Taylor Mar 5, 1849 1810 39
Millard Fillmore Jul 10, 1850 1826 24 1858 -8
Franklin Pierce Mar 4, 1853 1834 19
James Buchanan Mar 4, 1857 - no kids
Abraham Lincoln Mar 4, 1861 Mar 4, 1865 1842 19
Andrew Johnson Apr 15, 1865 1827 38
Ulysses S. Grant Mar 4, 1869 Mar 4, 1873 1848 21
Rutherford B. Hayes Mar 5, 1877 1852 25
James A. Garfield Mar 4, 1881 1858 23
Chester Arthur Sep 20, 1881 1869 12
Grover Cleveland Mar 4, 1885 Mar 4, 1893 1886 -1
Benjamin Harrison Mar 4, 1889 1853 36 1896 -7
William McKinley Mar 4, 1897 Mar 04, 1901 1871 26
Theodore Roosevelt Sep 14, 1901 Mar 04, 1905 1880 21 1886 15
William Howard Taft Mar 04, 1909 1886 23
Woodrow Wilson Mar 04, 1913 Mar 05, 1917 1885 28 1915 -2
Warren G. Harding Mar 04, 1921 1891 30 no kids
Calvin Coolidge Aug 03, 1923 Mar 04, 1925 1905 18
Herbert Hoover Mar 04, 1929 1899 30
F. D. Roosevelt Mar 04, 1933 Jan 20, 1937 1905 28
Harry S. Truman Apr 12, 1945 Jan 20, 1949 1919 26
Dwight D. Eisenhower Jan 20, 1953 Jan 21, 1957 1916 37
* Year of marriage, followed by years between marriage and first inaug.
It seems to me pretty absurd to base moral positions on "scientific evidence." Morality is always based on a notion of the way things should be, not the way they are The fact that murder has existed for as long as humanity doesn't mean that murder isn't immoral. With the death penalty, it seems like its only morally consistent to say the state has the right to execute people or not. How much crime it statistically does or does not prevent doesn't have any bearing on the morality of the act.
This is true. But groups need to appeal to the undecided and/or neutral if they hope for their moral beliefs to become part of public policy. And, aside from the moral implications of the death penalty itself, one does have to address how many innocent deaths are acceptable in a policy of implementing the death penalty (and is that ratio the same as the number of acceptable convictions of innocent people in the legal system itself). Any absolute system based on morality alone would be virtually incapable of action if required to be error free.
Your point might be more valid on the issue of abortion/ceasing life support for vegetative patients, etc. By picking a moral value of "human life" instead of "human consciousness", one avoids the difficulties involved in defining the latter. It doesn't change the morality of the issue today, but the history of religious stances on abortion seems to suggest that churches shifted to a *moral value of "human life" simply because defining when "human consciousness" occurs is impossible for a church to officially decide. (*Technically, abortion has always been considered morally wrong by religions such as the Catholic church, but the severity of the wrong has varied a lot over time - from "wrong" but nowhere near the wrongness of murder to "wrong" as in equivalent to murder.)
But, even so, one would have to maintain a consistent moral stance (such as the Catholic church's opposition to abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty) or at least explain the differing stances - and the requirement to explain is almost always going to bring in other issues. Once you start slicing and dicing basic moral values and applying them to real life situations, the search for evidence to justify those dividing lines become almost inevitable.
Morality is always based on a notion of the way things should be, not the way they are .
This might be the one big problem I have with most religions. Is the way the world works the way God made them to work? And if it is, isn't that the way the world is supposed to work? And isn't finding a way to deal with the world as it actually does work an indication that it's the way one should act? (Except those questions might be more appropriate in the Philosophy forum.)
Last edited:
#287
JDoolin
Gold Member
723
9
I think, what Republicans don't like is a top-down, bureaucratic, being-told-what-to-do by "experts." If I have a science teacher in high-school who wants to teach the possibility that the world was "created" rather than "evolved" (which I did, in high-school) it's not going to ruin me for life.
We still have some issues that are considered debatable by a large segment of the population, and I think there is some legitimate fear that "experts" might come along and take away the right of teachers to teach what they actually believe, and a legitimate fear that the schools are a place where teachers are required to teach things they don't believe.
This gives rise to what appears to be anti-intellectualism, but I think it is actually, more a reaction to being disrespected and marginalized.
I think, what Republicans don't like is a top-down, bureaucratic, being-told-what-to-do by "experts." If I have a science teacher in high-school who wants to teach the possibility that the world was "created" rather than "evolved" (which I did, in high-school) it's not going to ruin me for life.
We still have some issues that are considered debatable by a large segment of the population, and I think there is some legitimate fear that "experts" might come along and take away the right of teachers to teach what they actually believe, and a legitimate fear that the schools are a place where teachers are required to teach things they don't believe.
This gives rise to what appears to be anti-intellectualism, but I think it is actually, more a reaction to being disrespected and marginalized.
I had a few teachers that had that same belief. At the time, that seemed like a perfectly rational sentiment (it was the way I was taught, after all). But how many other jobs where your employer owes you the right to do your job the way you want to do it, even if giving you that freedom eliminates any hope of standardization and compatibility between the products of different employees?
In other words, that's a stance for education(s) being many products created stand alone by independent craftsmen vs education being the product that rolls out at the end of an assembly line. But even if some freedom for free-lancing is given, the end product of each teacher still has to be compatible enough to fit in with the products students will pick up from other teachers.
#289
WhoWee
219
0
turbo said:
I have no idea. It seems like a trend that is well-established and is bound to continue as long as it bears fruit. Does some segment of the voting public want candidates that are no more educated and skilled than themselves? I have a hard time understanding why, because I would love to have candidates that are so smart and skilled that I would love to have a chance to vote for them. A candidate that has a hard time elucidating policy issues or has to resort to jeans-and-flannel-shirt photo-ops with "oh-shucks" ads has no business running for high office.
The last time I looked, Santorum was sporting a sweater vest. Which candidate are you referring to now?
#290
Galteeth
69
1
BobG said:
This might be the one big problem I have with most religions. Is the way the world works the way God made them to work? And if it is, isn't that the way the world is supposed to work? And isn't finding a way to deal with the world as it actually does work an indication that it's the way one should act? (Except those questions might be more appropriate in the Philosophy forum.)
Well,that kind of reminds me of this novel I read where a character was contemplating the notion of destiny, and he was thinking if there was destiny, there was no point i doing anything since destiny would just make whatever happen anyway.
The fallacy there of course, is that by believing such, you are ensuring it is your destiny to do nothing.
This is is kind of how I see the issue of morality you addressed. Like, you could make an argument, well the murder of person X on the whole was a good thing, because person X would have gone on to father a dictator who killed millions.
Except in the real world, no one has access to this kind of information, and it's not even certain whether such information could actually exist. So you have to say, well, if murder is wrong, then the murder of person x was wrong, regardless of the ultimate consequences.
This is an interesting topic, but I agree it would be better to discuss on the philosophy forums.
To bring it back to politics, I do think it is difficult when most people don't think about the basis of their political opinions. There is often a hodge-podge of a priori moral positions and "practical" positions, without a consistent ontological basis that informs them.
#291
SixNein
Gold Member
122
20
BobG said:
It would be more accurate to say a segment of the conservative population have a high need for closure - specifically religious conservatives.
Isn't religion the glue of the conservative base?
“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country,” said Santorum.
The last time I looked, Santorum was sporting a sweater vest. Which candidate are you referring to now?
I think a guy can sport a tuxedo, leather chaps, or a Stetson. But I don't think it's possible to sport a sweater vest.
#294
JDoolin
Gold Member
723
9
JDoolin said:
I think, what Republicans don't like is a top-down, bureaucratic, being-told-what-to-do by "experts." If I have a science teacher in high-school who wants to teach the possibility that the world was "created" rather than "evolved" (which I did, in high-school) it's not going to ruin me for life.
We still have some issues that are considered debatable by a large segment of the population, and I think there is some legitimate fear that "experts" might come along and take away the right of teachers to teach what they actually believe, and a legitimate fear that the schools are a place where teachers are required to teach things they don't believe.
This gives rise to what appears to be anti-intellectualism, but I think it is actually, more a reaction to being disrespected and marginalized.
BobG said:
I had a few teachers that had that same belief. At the time, that seemed like a perfectly rational sentiment (it was the way I was taught, after all). But how many other jobs where your employer owes you the right to do your job the way you want to do it, even if giving you that freedom eliminates any hope of standardization and compatibility between the products of different employees?
In other words, that's a stance for education(s) being many products created stand alone by independent craftsmen vs education being the product that rolls out at the end of an assembly line. But even if some freedom for free-lancing is given, the end product of each teacher still has to be compatible enough to fit in with the products students will pick up from other teachers.
Hmmmmm. :) I'm not sure how to parse that sentence I bold-faced. But my point is that Republicans tend to see the schools as a top-down bureaucratic structure which they have no input on. And these bureaucratic "experts" are deciding what your children will learn, whether you agree with them or not.
Meanwhile, Democrats feel exactly the same way. The only difference is that Democrats actually trust the top-down bureaucratic structure to make the right choices of how to educate their children. The Democrat thinks "okay, those people are experts. They've devoted their whole life to studying this. I should trust them on what they're experts in, and I'll worry about what I'm expert in."
The Republican thinks "What do I care what some money-grubbing Washington bureaucrat thinks about how to raise my kids?"
#295
WhoWee
219
0
lisab said:
I think a guy can sport a tuxedo, leather chaps, or a Stetson. But I don't think it's possible to sport a sweater vest.
It might not be the most important thing that all present day Republicans have in common, but, in my experience, it's a contender. When I was growing up, it was Democrats who seemed most theistically religious. Now it seems to be Republicans.
I think that Santorum's comments betray a misunderstanding of the meaning and intent of "separation of church and state". But then, what else is he going to say, what other position could he take, assuming that more or less fanatical Christian catholics and protestants are his fundamental base?
One of the basic tenets of the American form of government is that public policies are not supposed to be based on any sort of appeal to any theistic religious dogma or mythology. Of course that's historically not been the case. There are still many many laws based on Christian doctrine, and it's still the case that a professed non-Christian has little chance of being elected to public office.
#297
ThomasT
529
0
The problem with Santorum's advocacy of home and private schooling, in my current opinion, is that tens of millions of Americans have neither the time for home schooling nor the money for private schooling. Maybe it would be better if everyone could do home or private schooling, but I would submit that probably most people can't do that. So, if that assumption is correct, then Santorum would seem to be a bit out of touch with the general American condition.
One of the basic tenets of the American form of government is that public policies are not supposed to be based on any sort of appeal to any theistic religious dogma or mythology. Of course that's historically not been the case. There are still many many laws based on Christian doctrine, and it's still the case that a professed non-Christian has little chance of being elected to public office.
One of the basic tenets of the American form of government is that public policies are not supposed to based on religious dogma, but, historically that hasn't been the case? Isn't that the same as saying the American form of government has historically been based on religious dogma, but you wish it wasn't?
In any event, the first sentence isn't really correct. Most states in the United States had a state religion. The problem is that they didn't all have the same state religion and a few state constitutions even mandated separation of church and state. When it came to creating a federal government for all 13 states, there was no possibility of having a national religion that all 13 could agree on, hence a separation of church and state for the federal government - which isn't the same as saying the American form government was based on separation of church and state, since all 13 states were part of America whether you mean the country or the continent.
None the less, the problems the federal government had when it came to religion is even more relevant today. You couldn't come up with even one state so homogenous in its religious beliefs that a state could survive linking its state government to a church.
#299
ThomasT
529
0
BobG said:
One of the basic tenets of the American form of government is that public policies are not supposed to based on religious dogma, but, historically that hasn't been the case? Isn't that the same as saying the American form of government has historically been based on religious dogma, but you wish it wasn't?
I think it says that politicians have a tendency to say one thing and do another. The fundamental law of the land, the constitution, specifies, wrt my understanding, pretty clearly that no theistic religious dogma should be the basis for the enactment of laws or the establishment of government agencies.
BobG said:
In any event, the first sentence isn't really correct. Most states in the United States had a state religion. The problem is that they didn't all have the same state religion and a few state constitutions even mandated separation of church and state. When it came to creating a federal government for all 13 states, there was no possibility of having a national religion that all 13 could agree on, hence a separation of church and state for the federal government - which isn't the same as saying the American form government was based on separation of church and state, since all 13 states were part of America whether you mean the country or the continent.
If no particular religion is to be favored, then doesn't that entail that no law can be based on any particular religion's doctrines? If so, then it seems that we have, historically, tended to break our own rules on a massive scale. No surprise there. But Santorum seems to be advocating a continuance of that sort of disregard for the fundamental law.
BobG said:
None the less, the problems the federal government had when it came to religion is even more relevant today. You couldn't come up with even one state so homogenous in its religious beliefs that a state could survive linking its state government to a church.
Agreed. At least not overtly/obviously. But it seems to me that that's exactly what Santorum is advocating. Ie., the enactment of laws and establishment of government agencies based primarily on Christian doctrine.
#300
Galteeth
69
1
JDoolin said:
Hmmmmm. :) I'm not sure how to parse that sentence I bold-faced. But my point is that Republicans tend to see the schools as a top-down bureaucratic structure which they have no input on. And these bureaucratic "experts" are deciding what your children will learn, whether you agree with them or not.
Meanwhile, Democrats feel exactly the same way. The only difference is that Democrats actually trust the top-down bureaucratic structure to make the right choices of how to educate their children. The Democrat thinks "okay, those people are experts. They've devoted their whole life to studying this. I should trust them on what they're experts in, and I'll worry about what I'm expert in."
The Republican thinks "What do I care what some money-grubbing Washington bureaucrat thinks about how to raise my kids?"
I don't think this is a fair summation of the argument. While what you have said is part of the debate, another important aspect is the degree to which local control versus state or federal control produces the best outcomes. For example, with federally mandated tests determining funding, teachers "teach to the test" and in some cases (like at my old high school) teachers allow cheating to boost scores. A lot of the debate does have to do with the bureaucratic nature of these things, and the question as to whether one size fits all policies actually work.
