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

[mheslep]

Assuming that are right on this why don't you think it has been challenged?

Challenged by whom? FC suggested 10%. PP has been under investigation by the a Congressional Oversight and Investigations subcommittee since Sept 15, "relating to its use of federal funding and its compliance with federal restrictions on the funding of abortion". Kansas PP garnered multiple felony indictments for falsifying pregnancy reports until the charges were dismissed because the paperwork disappeared in the Kansas AG's office.

 

[turbo]

I'll assume this post is your opinion?

You can safely assume that, WhoWee, but if you will search Santorum's statements, you will find how radical he is.

 

[WhoWee]

You can safely assume that, WhoWee, but if you will search Santorum's statements, you will find how radical he is.

Why don't we all read through his voting record in Congress - to be fair?

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/S000059/votes/

 

[turbo]

Why don't you summarize this fairly -to be fair?

 

[Char. Limit]

I find PP's figure of 3% highly dubious (it is not Fact Check's figure). I don't accept that the money is, or can be, fire walled off like that inside the same organization.

If you find it so dubious, surely you can find an equally reliable source stating otherwise.

 

[WhoWee]

Why don't you summarize this fairly -to be fair?

You'd like me to summarize his voting record?

 

[turbo]

You'd like me to summarize his voting record?

Yes, and his opinions, too. Please don't omit right-wing stuff.

 

[Jasongreat]

It seems that the same groups that are arguing that money in planned parenthood can be specifically allocated, were adament that the chamber of commerce could not keep its foreign funds separated from domestic funds, during the last election. That statement also works if you switch the chamber and PP.

I think it is semantics, if the chamber uses foreign funds to pay domestic bills, it frees up domestic money that would not have otherwise been available. So even though the foreign money did not specifically go to the campaign adds, more funds were available because of foreign money. The same can be said for planned parenthood, all money going to planned parenthood pay for abortions, might not be direct funding, but it makes the amount spent on abortions available for use.

 

[Evo]

Challenged by whom? FC suggested 10%. PP has been under investigation by the a Congressional Oversight and Investigations subcommittee since Sept 15, "relating to its use of federal funding and its compliance with federal restrictions on the funding of abortion".

The investigation is nothing more than a bogus witch hunt, IMO which was brought about by an anti-abortion religious activist group with such insane accusations as PP is involved in sex trafficking!

Planned Parenthood Investigation Is An Abuse Of Government Resources

WASHINGTON -- Ranking Democrats on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce sharply criticized Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) on Tuesday over his call for a far-reaching investigation into Planned Parenthood and its handling of federal funding.

After Republican lawmakers tried and failed to defund Planned Parenthood during federal budget negotiations in February, the anti-abortion activist group Americans United for Life released a 30-page report that accused the family planning provider of misusing federal funds, failing to report child sex abuse, assisting sex traffickers and a host of other illegal activities, though similar accusations were made against Planned Parenthood and debunked earlier this year. The purpose of AUL's report was to convince Congress to investigate Planned Parenthood and revoke its taxpayer funds.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...estigation-government-resources_n_984002.html

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, and his opinions, too. Please don't omit right-wing stuff.

This is a log of his key votes - according to the Washington Post.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/S000059/key-votes/page1/

He typically voted with Republicans.

 

[Char. Limit]

It seems that the same groups that are arguing that money in planned parenthood can be specifically allocated, were adament that the chamber of commerce could not keep its foreign funds separated from domestic funds, during the last election. That statement also works if you switch the chamber and PP.

I think it is semantics, if the chamber uses foreign funds to pay domestic bills, it frees up domestic money that would not have otherwise been available. So even though the foreign money did not specifically go to the campaign adds, more funds were available because of foreign money. The same can be said for planned parenthood, all money going to planned parenthood pay for abortions, might not be direct funding, but it makes the amount spent on abortions available for use.

So, let me get this straight, cause I want to make sure I have you correctly. Even though PP uses only 3% of its money on abortions, ALL money going to planned parenthood is paying for abortions? And for the record, I've never made the argument that the CoC couldn't keep foreign and domestic funds separate. I think as long as you're careful, of course you can. And I don't see the difference here.

 

[ThomasT]

I wonder if Santorum has heard about the new Abortionplex. I can't link to it because it's in The Onion and they sometimes use bad words.

 

[Jasongreat]

So, let me get this straight, cause I want to make sure I have you correctly. Even though PP uses only 3% of its money on abortions, ALL money going to planned parenthood is paying for abortions? And for the record, I've never made the argument that the CoC couldn't keep foreign and domestic funds separate. I think as long as you're careful, of course you can. And I don't see the difference here.

Not that ALL money going to PP is paying for abortions, but that ALL the money going to PP makes paying for abortions easier.

 

[Char. Limit]

Not that ALL money going to PP is paying for abortions, but that ALL the money going to PP makes paying for abortions easier.

But you can't make that argument unless you make the claim that it's impossible to segregate money within an organization, a claim that I disagree with.

 

[Jasongreat]

But you can't make that argument unless you make the claim that it's impossible to segregate money within an organization, a claim that I disagree with.

I think I can make that argument. :) You may disagree, which you have a right to do so, and I hope you do. Without dissent how can we come to truth?

I agree that corporations can segregate monies. However, there is no need to, so why would they? I can put 30% federal money into my charity, I can use it to pay overhead, advertising and any number of things. Then I can take the money that I don't have to use for those purposes, and invest in abortions. I can still claim with immunity as far as abortion funding goes that not one cent of the 30% federal funding goes to abortions. It is even easier to prove that only 3% of that funding goes to abortion.

 

[AlephZero]

But you can't make that argument unless you make the claim that it's impossible to segregate money within an organization.

It might be possible to do that in theory, but the main point of "money" is that it is fungible. When you give somebody or some organization a dollar bill, you can't attach a label to it saying "it's illegal to spend this particaular dollar bill on anything except XYZ".

 

[WhoWee]

From the posts in this thread I have to wonder if a race between Santorum vs Obama wouldn't become the pro-religion candidate Santorum vs the anti-religion candidate Obama - given the current controversy with the Catholic madate - seems to be shaping up that way - doesn't it?

 

[daveb]

From the posts in this thread I have to wonder if a race between Santorum vs Obama wouldn't become the pro-religion candidate Santorum vs the anti-religion candidate Obama - given the current controversy with the Catholic madate - seems to be shaping up that way - doesn't it?

I find it ironic that Obama is now being labeled anti-religion by some on the right when he was labeled a radical Christian back in the Reverend Wright days, then a Muslim. I wonder what's next.

 

[WhoWee]

I find it ironic that Obama is now being labeled anti-religion by some on the right when he was labeled a radical Christian back in the Reverend Wright days, then a Muslim. I wonder what's next.

There's an old saying - 'you are what you eat' - if he joins another church like Rev Wright's, or makes more speeches about the US not being a Christian country/one of the largest Muslim countries, or it becomes known he attended another school similar to the Muslim one, or if his participation at a prayer breakfast is dismissed as insincere, or he squares off with the Catholics or another group again - then the new thing might become an issue - IMO of course.

 

[lisab]

I find it ironic that Obama is now being labeled anti-religion by some on the right when he was labeled a radical Christian back in the Reverend Wright days, then a Muslim. I wonder what's next.

Well to some on the fringe who see a boogie man behind every blade of grass, Obama seems to be the embodiment of their apparitions, and whatever it is they're afraid of changes all the time: Obama is a Muslim/socialist/foreign/fear-of-the-week-goes-here! Really interesting...it says a whole lot about the collective psyche of those who are on the fringe. Be afraid! Be very afraid!

IMveryHO, of course .

 

[WhoWee]

Well to some on the fringe who see a boogie man behind every blade of grass, Obama seems to be the embodiment of their apparitions, and whatever it is they're afraid of changes all the time: Obama is a Muslim/socialist/foreign/fear-of-the-week-goes-here! Really interesting...it says a whole lot about the collective psyche of those who are on the fringe. Be afraid! Be very afraid!

IMveryHO, of course .

How fitting in a Santorum thread - IMO of course. Does anyone want to talk about Santorum's experience in Congress or his depth of knowledge regarding foreign affairs or peraps his debate skills - or are we only concerned with his stand on social issues?

 

[Char. Limit]

How fitting in a Santorum thread - IMO of course. Does anyone want to talk about Santorum's experience in Congress or his depth of knowledge regarding foreign affairs or peraps his debate skills - or are we only concerned with his stand on social issues?

I for one would never vote for the man, solely BECAUSE of his stance on social issues. The man's anti-science, after all.

 

[WhoWee]

I for one would never vote for the man, solely BECAUSE of his stance on social issues. The man's anti-science, after all.

Are you referring to post 8?

 

[Char. Limit]

Are you referring to post 8?

Just looked, and no. I'm referring to his stances on global warming and creationism, both of which I consider to be anti-science stances (although the latter considerably more so).

 

[WhoWee]

Just looked, and no. I'm referring to his stances on global warming and creationism, both of which I consider to be anti-science stances (although the latter considerably more so).

What is his stance on global warming? I seem to recall he's against Cap and Trade?

 

[Char. Limit]

What is his stance on global warming? I seem to recall he's against Cap and Trade?

Yes, and a little bit more - he seems to believe that global warming itself is a hoax, apparently (and this is opinion) believing that scientists have nothing better to do than to craft stories about climate to make the population spend money.

Source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns...ever-believed-global-warming-hoax-113739.html

"Speaker Gingrich has supported cap and trade for more than a dozen years. Now, he wants business incentives to go along with cap and trade, but he supported cap and trade, and sat on the couch with Nancy Pelosi and said that global warming had to be addressed by Congress," Santorum said. "Who is he or who's Governor Romney to be able to go after President Obama? I've never supported even the hoax of global warming."

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, and a little bit more - he seems to believe that global warming itself is a hoax, apparently (and this is opinion) believing that scientists have nothing better to do than to craft stories about climate to make the population spend money.

Source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns...ever-believed-global-warming-hoax-113739.html

Are we permitted to discuss this topic?

 

[Char. Limit]

Are we permitted to discuss this topic?

I'm not sure. It might be better to let it slide... I don't want to get banned after all!

I will still categorically refuse to support any candidate who endorses creationism, though, no matter how much he agrees with my view otherwise. Such a stance is indefensible.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Santorum scared of women's emotions in combat. I personally know a few outdoorish hunter women who are just as "tough" as any man.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/us/2012/02/10/sot-santorum-women-in-combat.cnn

 

[turbo]

Santorum scared of women's emotions in combat. I personally know a few outdoorish hunter women who are just as "tough" as any man.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/us/2012/02/10/sot-santorum-women-in-combat.cnn

Me, too Greg. One of my wife's closest friends calls herself one-shot Shaw, because she prides herself on shooting deer with a kill-shot and not blazing away at them. I'm the same way, and only hunt with a Ruger Model 1 (single-shot) unless it is wet outside. Then I'll take one of my antique Winchester .30-30s out of the safe and hunt with that. I'd gladly have "one-shot Shaw" watching my back.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes, and a little bit more - he seems to believe that global warming itself is a hoax

Are we permitted to discuss this topic?

I'm not sure. It might be better to let it slide... I don't want to get banned after all!

Rules are rules and apply to all the forum.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

is santorum worried about women in the army for the same reason why some people were worried about gay people in the army? Fear that they'd be "distractions"? If so I think that's fairly insulting to the armed forces.

 

[Char. Limit]

is santorum worried about women in the army for the same reason why some people were worried about gay people in the army? Fear that they'd be "distractions"? If so I think that's fairly insulting to the armed forces.

From what I get, he's worried because women are apparently too emotional to serve on the front line. Which is of course a crock, but that's what he believes.

 

[Oltz]

is santorum worried about women in the army for the same reason why some people were worried about gay people in the army? Fear that they'd be "distractions"? If so I think that's fairly insulting to the armed forces.

You are taking Distraction the wrong way. Having been in the army and having fought in Iraq please let me explain.

Women in combat are a distraction because the men are morried about protecting the women then they are about themselves or the mission. Right or not it leads to more mistakes and more bad choices. I have seen it. Women are fine in the military and are fine in non combat MOS's ie medic, supply, intel whatever.

Sorry for OT

 

[turbo]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/rick-santorum-women-military-combat-roles_n_1267851.html

Santorum has walked that back and said that it's the men who could emotional if they see a woman in harm's way. He should be managing a Waffle House.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Santorum claims that without faith the US is heading towards a French Revolution

Women in combat are a distraction because the men are morried about protecting the women then they are about themselves or the mission. Right or not it leads to more mistakes and more bad choices. I have seen it. Women are fine in the military and are fine in non combat MOS's ie medic, supply, intel whatever.

Sorry but I don't buy that this is a necessary thing that can't be removed without proper training. Whilst I've never been in the army I did Judo at university with a mixed class and let me tell you if we were ever out and in trouble I wouldn't worry about protecting the women especially. In fact I would probably rely on many of those women to help stop the fight and take care of those less able to defend themselves.

 

[Jasongreat]

Here is Santorums CPAC speech, there was quite abit of fawning over it going on, on a certain channel today, but I haven't had a chance to watch it yet.

 

[MarcoD]

I always forget the US is such a religious place.

 

[WhoWee]

I always forget the US is such a religious place.

In the industrial northern cities - it seems there's a church on every corner - the south is known as the biblebelt - like it or not religion is part of our culture.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

In the industrial northern cities - it seems there's a church on every corner - the south is known as the biblebelt - like it or not religion is part of our culture.

maybe yours, not mine : /

 

[WhoWee]

maybe yours, not mine : /

What northern industrial city are you suggesting doesn't have a lot of churches?

 

[phoenix:\\]

Religion is more a sub-culture in America, it isn't really apart of it in the sense that Americans base their principles around religion. The principles we do have are more along the lines of common human good rather than some religious fervor of old. Even the religious are finding it harder and harder to completely accept the Bible as something to live their lives by as it contradicts with the American principles of how we ought to treat other humans or how one would want to live his/her life.

A few Bible verses from the New Testament:

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23 Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror 24 and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like.

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

Sexual immorality by the Bible's standard:

You have heard how it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say this to you, if a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Yup, and...

Shun lewd conduct. Every other sin a man commits is outside his body, but the fornicator sins against his own body.

It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable

With that all said... Read this:

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/digital-issue/53?page=66

Where is the disowning of these heretics?

and in Rick Santorum's words, "I Wish I Made As Much Money As Mitt Romney"

there is something about envy as well and not following worldly possessions, isn't there? No surprise I don't envy Mitt Romney, I believe making too much money and hoarding it to be completely wrong, but that is just me and I'm not christian or religious for that matter. So, him saying "taking faith and crushing it" is what?

 

[SHISHKABOB]

What northern industrial city are you suggesting doesn't have a lot of churches?

just because there are five churches in my town doesn't mean church is a part of *my* culture

 

[WhoWee]

Religion is more a sub-culture in America, it isn't really apart of it in the sense that Americans base their principles around religion. The principles we do have are more along the lines of common human good rather than some religious fervor of old. Even the religious are finding it harder and harder to completely accept the Bible as something to live their lives by as it contradicts with the American principles of how we ought to treat other humans or how one would want to live his/her life.

I would love to hear President Obama argue your point against Senator Santorum.

 

[WhoWee]

just because there are five churches in my town doesn't mean church is a part of *my* culture

I could be wrong, label it IMO - but my guess is the majority of Americans get married/buried in church/temple/mosque ceremonies - that is a cultural aspect of the majority.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I could be wrong, label it IMO - but my guess is the majority of Americans get married/buried in church/temple/mosque ceremonies - that is a cultural aspect of the majority.

yeah I totally agree that it's a big part of most people's lives in america, and I don't doubt that I'm going to get married in a church and get buried at one too. But I stopped going to church and thinking about life in a religious way several years ago when my church sort of fell apart. Though now that I think about it, the only reason why I went to church was because I was friends with all the kids in the youth group there, not so much because I felt that religion was a deep part of my life.

Which makes it a bit of a problem for me here in the USA because so many people base their lives on their faith and vote according to their religion, etc. but I don't do that at all. It's important for a lot of people, but not ALL people.

 

[WhoWee]

yeah I totally agree that it's a big part of most people's lives in america, and I don't doubt that I'm going to get married in a church and get buried at one too. But I stopped going to church and thinking about life in a religious way several years ago when my church sort of fell apart. Though now that I think about it, the only reason why I went to church was because I was friends with all the kids in the youth group there, not so much because I felt that religion was a deep part of my life.

Which makes it a bit of a problem for me here in the USA because so many people base their lives on their faith and vote according to their religion, etc. but I don't do that at all. It's important for a lot of people, but not ALL people.

If you think about it, the youth groups are cultural as well. I really don't think a majority of people vote based on religious beliefs. However, if a candidate chooses to take an anti-religion position in a serious way - I think people will defend their religious rights and vote accordingly.

 

[ThomasT]

I really don't think a majority of people vote based on religious beliefs.

This raises an interesting question. What part does a candidate's theistic religious (or not) orientation/affiliation play in most peoples' minds? How much does it affect their vote?

However, if a candidate chooses to take an anti-religion position in a serious way - I think people will defend their religious rights and vote accordingly.

This seems to assume that most people are pro-religion in some important sense. An assumption which the extant public evidence seems to support.

Apparently, American society is oriented toward the idea that some theistic religion is better than no theistic religion at all, and that a certain religion, namely Christianity, is preferable to, say, Judaism or Islam (the main competitors to Christianity, afaik).

Apparently, a majority of Americans vote based on whether or not a candidate is an avowed Christian or not.

I therefore agree with your opinion that if a candidate were to profess, say, atheism, then that candidate would have virtually no chance of being elected. That is, American freedom of religion doesn't, in practice, include the freedom to choose to not believe in some theistic religious mythology. And, fapp, imo, it doesn't include the freedom to choose to not believe in the Christian religious mythology.

In other words, wrt running for public office, as long as one is a Christian of some sort, then America is a haven of religious freedom.

I think that "if a candidate [chose] to take an anti-religion position in a serious way", then the opposition to that stance, reflected in the vote, wouldn't be due to people defending the right to believe as one sees fit, but rather would be due to people defending a particular religious bias.

To connect this to the OP. Santorum is, I think, as a sort of fanatical Christian, not really in favor of freedom of belief. But then who is?

 

[lisab]

If you think about it, the youth groups are cultural as well. I really don't think a majority of people vote based on religious beliefs. However, if a candidate chooses to take an anti-religion position in a serious way - I think people will defend their religious rights and vote accordingly.

Bolded: I'll believe that when an openly atheist candidate is elected president.

Btw, atheist <> anti-religion. But that's probably way off-topic.

 

[ThomasT]

Bolded: I'll believe that when an openly atheist candidate is elected president.

Yes, you made the point I was trying to make in much fewer, and probably more effective, words.

Btw, atheist <> anti-religion. But that's probably way off-topic.

What does "<>" mean?