News Is Rick Santorum's Religious Extremism a Deal Breaker for Voters?

[SHISHKABOB]

doing something religousLY does not make doing that something into a religion

 

[Number Nine]

doing something religousLY does not make doing that something into a religion

This is actually an extremely important point. Religious devotion has led to the idiom of sorts that a person who pursues something zealously is pursuing it "religiously", but this doesn't mean that the term "religion" actually applies to that pursuit.

 

[jreelawg]

I don't think it is necessary to equate Santorums views with religion, although his religious beliefs certainly contribute to them.

For example, Santorum thinks that colleges are controlled by Satan. Where in the bible is it written that colleges are or would be controlled by Satan? This is his theory, which he puts into the context of his religious perspective, but is his own idea, not an idea which is represented by his religion.

Now there are plenty of people of the same religion, with very different views.

When he says though, that he thinks colleges are controlled by Satan, I take it that he hates colleges the same way that many U.S. churches used to say god hates black people.

I think some disturbed people incorporate there own views, dislikes, hatred, or whatever, into their religion. Then you end up with this addition to a religion being passed down as children learn from their parents etc.

The next thing you know, the religious tone has evolved in meaning according to some lunatics popularized hatred.

So when I look at Santorum, I don't really see him in terms of his religion so much as his character. I think he's just an angry little man.

 

[Hobin]

So when I look at Santorum, I don't really see him in terms of his religion so much as his character. I think he's just an angry little man.

He's a little too popular for someone's who's just an angry little man, methinks.

 

[lisab]

He's a little too popular for someone's who's just an angry little man, methinks.

Maybe "angry little man" is the Zeitgeist for the great recession.

 

[Pythagorean]

This is a bit ridiculous. Thomas won't even cop to his own argument, instead demanding you satisfy his proxy Christian evangelist.

thus my lack of reply :)

 

[Office_Shredder]

http://m.cbsnews.com/blogsfullstory.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=57390626&videofeed=36

No country that had ever form socialized medicine has stopped using it, and santorum states that this is a negative feature

 

[mheslep]

http://m.cbsnews.com/blogsfullstory.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=57390626&videofeed=36

No country that had ever form socialized medicine has stopped using it, and santorum states that this is a negative feature

I admit that it is difficult to give up, but I'm not sure about the no country claim. I thought the Dutch gave it up? Others have backed away at least a degree or two. The Canadians for instance used to outlaw private clinics in some provinces, but that law was since ruled illegal.

edit: yes

Until 2006, two thirds of the population was insured by public health insurance funds managed by nonprofit associations, with enrollees making an income-dependent contribution. People with incomes above a predefined threshold were privately insured and paid a full premium.
Although the Dutch system provided high-quality care at relatively low cost,1 many believed that the insurance system offered too little choice, spread the financial burden unevenly, and did little to control increasing health care expenditures. To address these problems, a new statutory health insurance system was introduced in January 2006. Under this system, the public health insurers have been privatized or have merged with private health insurers,...

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0707383

Anybody know of other cases?

 

[MarcoD]

I thought the Dutch gave it up?

No, we definitely didn't. Some things changed/were liberalized, people were hoping that market effects would lower some of the involved costs. I don't think it did, but like I said, we have such an baroque system that only experts understand how it works.

 

[mheslep]

No, we definitely didn't. Some things changed/were liberalized, people were hoping that market effects would lower some of the involved costs. I don't think it did, but like I said, we have such an baroque system that only experts understand how it works.

Can you square that with the New England Journal of Medicine reference? Sounds like you may be referring to the stipend given to the poor

People with low incomes receive a subsidy for the basic insurance, and there is an option to purchase an additional package to cover nonvital extras.

But that's nothing close to the system in place before 2006 which was ... public healthcare

 

[MarcoD]

No, I am referring to the whole system where the government is very active in what healthcare should be provided/be mandatory, how the insurers buy medical care, what guidelines there are for all actors, etc. It surely isn't a free market mechanism, and it's only understood by the actors.

Personally, I think it's just all overhead on a process where you don't want any market mechanism; i.e., neoliberal nonsense. I have the feeling that the whole system works at the moment despite the nonsense because most people in the field try their best to make it work no matter what. But that's just my unfounded opinion, and I guess it's a discussion I shouldn't even be involved in.

Anyway, cost are exploding. That's all I know.

 

[ThomasT]

Maybe "angry little man" is the Zeitgeist for the great recession.

It would seem to be for, say, the OWS people.

 

[ThomasT]

This is actually an extremely important point. Religious devotion has led to the idiom of sorts that a person who pursues something zealously is pursuing it "religiously", but this doesn't mean that the term "religion" actually applies to that pursuit.

Ok, so I guess we're all agreed that, wrt this thread, the term religion refers to the big three theistic religions, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity? And of course I realize that that's generally how the term is used in ordinary language. But, like I said, it does have other meanings which have been used in arguments by religious (in the ordinary sense) zealots.

Anyway, in the agreed, and ordinary, sense, Santorum is, to me, an unnacceptably religious person. And for that reason, I will not vote for him.

 

[ThomasT]

He's a little too popular for someone's who's just an angry little man, methinks.

I agree with you in the sense that as far as I'm concerned he's too popular. But I don't see him as an angry little man. After all, he's rich, he's running for president, he's got a nice family. What's he got to be angry about? He'd probably make a great neighbor. I just don't want him to be president -- mostly because of the fact that he seems to be a bit too theistically religious for my ... sensibilities.

 

[mheslep]

No, I am referring to the whole system where the government is very active in what healthcare should be provided/be mandatory, how the insurers buy medical care, what guidelines there are for all actors, etc. It surely isn't a free market mechanism, and it's only understood by the actors.

Ok, the Dutch have regulated healthcare by private insurers in a market. They use to have public insurance for 2/3 of the country, i.e. socialized healthcare, now they don't. I think that's a counter-example to Santorum's claim.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think that's a counter-example to Santorum's claim.

And there's plenty of counter examples to his second statement as well, that no country that's lost its freedom has ever regained it. Why would he even want to say something like that? It's all over folks - we've socialized medicine and lost our freedom, and there's no turning back. Might as well retire to your bunkers and wait for the apocalypse.

 

[lisab]

And there's plenty of counter examples to his second statement as well, that no country that's lost its freedom has ever regained it. Why would he even want to say something like that? It's all over folks - we've socialized medicine and lost our freedom, and there's no turning back. Might as well retire to your bunkers and wait for the apocalypse.

The ratcheting down of freedom.

That made me laugh .

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I agree with you in the sense that as far as I'm concerned he's too popular. But I don't see him as an angry little man. After all, he's rich, he's running for president, he's got a nice family. What's he got to be angry about? He'd probably make a great neighbor. I just don't want him to be president -- mostly because of the fact that he seems to be a bit too theistically religious for my ... sensibilities.

he'd make a great neighbor

as long as you don't forget your front yard nativity scene dun dun dun

 

[ThomasT]

he'd make a great neighbor

as long as you don't forget your front yard nativity scene dun dun dun

I knew that was going to get some sort of sarcastic reply. Ok, it's funny. But seriously, I've known lots, and I mean lots, of pretty devout Catholic Christians. And, afaik, they're good people. Ok, not counting the priests. But really, the devout Catholics who haven't been proven weird seem ok.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I knew that was going to get some sort of sarcastic reply. Ok, it's funny. But seriously, I've known lots, and I mean lots, of pretty devout Catholic Christians. And, afaik, they're good people. Ok, not counting the priests. But really, the devout Catholics who haven't been proven weird seem ok.

yeah I agree, I've also known lots of great Christians. But I've also known lots of great people who were not Christian.

personally I think a good person will be a good person regardless of their faith, and vice versa. Therefore I think that Santorum is really just using his faith to win votes, which is gross IMO.

 

[mheslep]

...Why would he even want to say something like that?

It's clear that socialized medicine is not an easy thing to reverse, even if it has happened in small countries.

It's all over folks - we've socialized medicine and lost our freedom, and there's no turning back. Might as well retire to your bunkers and wait for the apocalypse.

Yes, he's c..r..a..z..y. C'mon.

Does this Jefferson sound apocalytic?

The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield


Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny

 

[Gokul43201]

It's clear that socialized medicine is not an easy thing to reverse, even if it has happened in small countries.

I think you misunderstood what I was referring to. I'm more amazed about the statement that no country that has lost its freedom has ever regained it. If you look at my post again, you'll see that it was this particular statement that I was questioning the judgment behind making.

Yes, he's c..r..a..z..y. C'mon.

From a political point of view, yes, I think so. How is a message that it's too late to return to the glory days supposed to get the electorate to the polling station?

I suppose the argument might be that we're not quite past the point of no return just yet, but with 4 more years of Obama (or Romney?), we definitely will be? That logic is a little difficult to square with the view that things went to hell in a handbasket the moment O was sworn in.

Does this Jefferson sound apocalytic?

The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield


Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny

Does either of that sound remotely close to: No country that has lost its freedom has ever regained it?

Jefferson is making careful observations on the nature of government, not throwing out off-hand statements that are blatantly erroneous.

 

[Astronuc]

Looks like Santorum won the caucuses in Kansas.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/caucuses-kansas-wyoming-gop-hopefuls-15893854

 

[Evo]

Looks like Santorum won the caucuses in Kansas.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/caucuses-kansas-wyoming-gop-hopefuls-15893854

Kansas is known for it's religious leanings in education and politics, IMO, causing some rather embarrassing decisions.

 

[AlephZero]

he'd make a great neighbor

For amusement only: Four quotes allegedly by Santorum, and four allegedly by Supreme Leader Khamenei. Who said what? http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/29/grand_ayatollah_or_grand_old_party?page=0,0

(I say "allegedly", because I haven't attempted to verify the sources).

 

[ThomasT]

yeah I agree, I've also known lots of great Christians. But I've also known lots of great people who were not Christian.

Me too.

Personally I think a good person will be a good person regardless of their faith, and vice versa.

Me too.

Therefore I think that Santorum is really just using his faith to win votes, which is gross IMO.

I don't see anything particularly reprehensible about that. He's, apparently, a very religiously Christian guy and there are lots of very religiously Christian people in the US. Why would he not attempt to appeal to that constituency?

I won't vote for him, but pushing his religious orientation is part of the game as currently circumscribed. It's up to people who don't agree with that sort of thing to vote for a different candidate. Which I certainly will.

 

[mathwonk]

aleph, i only got two of those right. i am one of those people who isn't sure whether santorum's nomination would help republicans or democrats more. but if it helps republicans I'm pretty nervous, because he seems not to appreciate separation of church and state, (or was that khameini?)

 

[Angry Citizen]

i am one of those people who isn't sure whether santorum's nomination would help republicans or democrats more.

I've been predicting a splinter in the Republican Party since a little after Obama was elected. The seems to be three factions in the Republican Party, all vying for control. One is, of course, the traditional Republican establishment responsible for Bush the Elder and Reagan and the '94 Republican takeover, which makes up perhaps half of the current constituency. Another is the libertarian wing, which I feel makes up about 10% (about the share Ron Paul is getting on average). And lastly is the Christian Conservative side, responsible for Bush the Younger. These make up the rest.

What fascinates me most about this is just how unstable the relationship is. Libertarians and Christian conservatives are practically antithetical to one another in every respect except their particular brand of laissez-faire economics. "Secular" Republicans see Christian conservatives as a threat that must be beaten down, else their party will find itself on the losing end of a youth generation that is overwhelmingly liberal on social issues. If the libertarian wing starts to defect, then the tenuous balance of power between Democrats and Republicans will break leftward. If the secular Republicans can't defeat the Christian conservatives, then the Republicans will find themselves marginalized. It is of the utmost importance for Republicans that they find a way to purge the influence of Christian conservatives while maintaining them as a loyal voting bloc. I don't think it needs to be said just how unlikely this scenario will be.

This is what I see happening. This 'war' between Christian conservatives, secular Republicans and libertarians will play out all the way to the convention. Santorum will lose, but it will be much closer than Romney will feel comfortable with. Romney is not going to be accepted by all of the Christian conservative movement, but he will be accepted by most. The Republicans are going to lose this election unless the economy turns into a train wreck and/or Europe succumbs to its imminent recession too soon. Obama has placed them in a checkmate no matter who wins the primary. Blame will be placed on the Christian conservatives, and they will no longer enjoy the status as the favored wing of the Republicans. This will translate into more traditional Republicanism, but I think it'll take another sound thrashing after 2012 (perhaps the 2014 midterms) before they wake up and smell the fact that Keynesianism - and dare I say it socialism - is back in vogue.

 

[Evo]

Seriously? And what is his definition of pornography, scantily clad women? Playboy magazine? How many billions of dollars will he spend to keep Americans from looking at risque pictures in the privacy of their homes? No more nudity in films? Book burnings? Label all above IMO in case it's not clear that I am asking.

Rick Santorum wants to ban pornography

Rick Santorum wants to put an end to the distribution of pornography in the United States.

"America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography," Santorum's official website reads. "Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."

The former Pennsylvania senator states that, "as a parent, I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture."

Santorum criticized the Obama administration for turning "a blind eye ... to the scourge of pornography" and for refusing to enforce obscenity laws.

"If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so," Santorum writes. "While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration."

Continued...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-wants-ban-hardcore-pornography-222833811.html

 

[Hobin]

I'm not from the USA, but surely there aren't that many people who agree with Santorum on this one? Or am I underestimating the anti-pornography movement in America?