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

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ThomasT
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Rick Santorum's candidacy in the GOP race, focusing on his religious views and their implications for voters. Participants explore various aspects of his positions, including his stance on contraception and science, as well as the potential impact of his endorsements and public perception.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express strong opposition to Santorum's religious views, labeling him as a "fanatical fundamental Christian extremist," which influences their voting decisions.
  • Others note that Santorum's success in Iowa was largely due to Evangelical endorsements, questioning whether this support will translate into broader appeal.
  • There are concerns about Santorum's viability as a candidate, with some predicting he will not last long in the race, while others believe he could outperform Romney in upcoming primaries.
  • Participants discuss Santorum's controversial statements regarding scientists, with some arguing he characterizes them as amoral, while others defend the integrity of scientific research and bioethics.
  • Some contributions highlight Santorum's opposition to contraception and link it to broader cultural issues, such as the "abortion culture" affecting Social Security.
  • There is a debate about the implications of Santorum's views on morality in science, with participants discussing the need for regulation of scientific practices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express disagreement on Santorum's views and their implications, with no consensus on his candidacy's viability or the validity of his criticisms of science and morality.

Contextual Notes

Some statements reflect personal opinions and interpretations of Santorum's positions, which may not be universally accepted. The discussion includes various interpretations of morality in relation to scientific practices and the political landscape.

  • #481
D H said:
That's not a good idea (consider yourself warned). This thread is about Santorum's strengths and weaknesses, not Obama's.

I would say comparing Santorum's gaffes to Obama's gaffes wouldn't be a particularly thorough analysis of whether Santorum makes more gaffes than the average candidate, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

A better measure would be to take the number of gaffes all of the candidates make and then see if Santorum makes an above average number of gaffes, a below average number of gaffes, or makes about an average number of gaffes.

It's an evaluation that's impossible to make without referring to the gaffes of other candidates. (None the less, simply telling other posters to do the comparison themselves between one other candidate isn't a particularly strong statement, but I think the point that a conclusion can't be drawn from one example was clear.)

At least Santorum has yet to make the top 25 list for most embarrassing politician gaffes of this century. He still has a little bit of time left in which to raise his game, though.

And, http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-27/opinion/opinion_obeidallah-gaffes_1_president-obama-mitt-romney-eric-fehrnstrom?_s=PM:OPINION , even if a candidate's gaffes should be put into perspective.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #482
Looking from the other side of the pond, this debate about the minutiae of degree requirements seems like a sideshow (how ever important it might seem to those inside the US education system).

For example the UK gets all this "general education" stuff out of the way as part of the national education curriculum up to age 16 (i.e. the age limit for compulsory schooling). After that, you specialize in whatever you want to specialize in.

The notion that if you went to Oxbridge to read math or science you would have to take courses in languages or history would seem completely nonsensical - to Brits.
 
  • #483
BobG said:
I would say comparing Santorum's gaffes to Obama's gaffes wouldn't be a particularly thorough analysis of whether Santorum makes more gaffes than the average candidate, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss Santorum, no one else. This thread isn't about comparing candidates. Each candidate has their own thread to discuss facts about them.
 
  • #484
daveb said:
From the http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/catalog/catalog11-12-21.htm#368767672_pgfId-998745 website:



My guess is Santorum was referring to those that satisfy the requirement ina manner other than taking it at UCLA - but they still (supposedly) know the concepts and information, so why force them to learn it all over again? Hence, I conclude he's a tad loopy.
When does being wrong on the facts make someone loopy?
 
  • #485
AlephZero said:
Looking from the other side of the pond, this debate about the minutiae of degree requirements seems like a sideshow (how ever important it might seem to those inside the US education system).

For example the UK gets all this "general education" stuff out of the way as part of the national education curriculum up to age 16 (i.e. the age limit for compulsory schooling). After that, you specialize in whatever you want to specialize in.

The notion that if you went to Oxbridge to read math or science you would have to take courses in languages or history would seem completely nonsensical - to Brits.
Depends on the definition of general. My experience in US college, along side students raised abroad was that, though well prepared, they did not receive a substitute for a university level course.
 
  • #486
... has been suspended.
 
  • #487
I'm contemplating packing up and leaving the US with how much momentum he had. Not sure this is my country.
 
  • #488
Pythagorean said:
I'm contemplating packing up and leaving the US with how much momentum he had. Not sure this is my country.
I'll help you pack.
 
  • #490
Jimmy Snyder said:
I'll help you pack.

Hey, if enough of the right people leave, Santorum could be the president of 2012 elections.
 
  • #491
/thread
 
  • #493
I began this thread on January 5 of this year. I've learned some stuff about Santorum that I didn't know then. Thanks to all posters. Apparently, Santorum has pulled out of the race. So, there doesn't seem to be any further need to discuss his qualifications for the office of the presidency of the US.

As far as I'm concerned, a Mentor can now close the thread. If not, and if anybody else has something to say about Santorum, then ok. But I'm done with this. Thanks, and let's all hope for a better US and some solutions to present problems.
 

Similar threads

News Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)
  • · Replies 293 ·
10
Replies
293
Views
36K
News Politics - playing the religious card
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
10K
News What Are the Consequences of the Debt Deal for the US Economy?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
News Did Scott Brown's Win Signal a Shift in American Political Landscape?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
9K
News Palin pick an insult to our intelligence
  • · Replies 1K ·
34
Replies
1K
Views
97K
News Renaissance and reaction to Islam.
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
8K
In The United States Today Science, Is Under Attack As Never Before
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
News What do you think about the deal with North Korea?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
Current and Future AI Threats to Humanity and the Human Response
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K