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

[MarcoD]

But he's nuts if he thinks people are going to be euthanized against their will, IMO.

Well, I agree on that. But personally I've started to believe that nothing is beyond doctors; but that's also because of some personal experiences, and I am starting to become a grumpy old fart. I really think in some professions doctors need to rethink their premises. So, I kind of sympathize with him there.

(To the most of you: you should write down my comments as 'a case of bad luck.' It has nothing to do with religion.)

 

[lisab]

Well, I agree on that. But personally I've started to believe that nothing is beyond doctors; but that's also because of some personal experiences, and I am starting to become a grumpy old fart. I really think in some professions doctors need to rethink their premises. So, I kind of sympathize with him there.

Actually I think you're right on target. I feel he's the most sincere of all the candidates, and for that I give him begrudged respect. Begrudged because I really, strongly don't agree with him.

 

[Galteeth]

Actually I think you're right on target. I feel he's the most sincere of all the candidates, and for that I give him begrudged respect. Begrudged because I really, strongly don't agree with him.

I disagree.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/rick-santorum-abortion_n_1291634.html

 

[JDoolin]

I disagree.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/rick-santorum-abortion_n_1291634.html

Actually, I think what I see there in that link is a fairly standard Republican stance. They don't believe abortion should be illegal but rather, they believe there should be no tax-payer money involved supporting any abortion, or any organization that performs abortions.

 

[Fredrik]

No. I think it's, among other things, the comment he made about the Netherlands. According to him, we would euthanize 10% of the elderly and elderly would wear bracelets to prevent that from happening.

Now that clearly isn't true, right? But that doesn't matter. The thing is that in case it would be true, he would be at the right side of the fence. So you end up with the idea: 'This is really a decent chap.'

I'm surprised that this type of rhetoric would work on a person who's clearly smart enough to know that this guy is either delusional or lying. (In my opinion, it's 80% delusion and 20% lying).

 

[MarcoD]

Wouldn't know. He may be a shrewd politician, or someone might have fed him some baloney story. I really don't know enough about him to form any opinion, except for that I am a rabid atheist, so go figure.

 

[Galteeth]

Actually, I think what I see there in that link is a fairly standard Republican stance. They don't believe abortion should be illegal but rather, they believe there should be no tax-payer money involved supporting any abortion, or any organization that performs abortions.

The point is he's taken a much harder line since his first run for congress. The article was a response to his supposed sincerity. It is evidence suggestive that perhaps he is more of a standard politician, saying what he thinks will gain him traction, rather then necessarily being a "true believer." I'm not sure myself. Neither option is particularly palatable to me. But certainly in the last debate, he explained his willingness to vote for things he didn't believe in for political purposes (see his response to his vote on No Child Left Behind.)

 

[ThomasT]

If you are pro-choice and vote against Santorum because he is pro-life, are you voting against him for religious reasons?

I think this is a somewhat interesting, and somewhat deep, question. My affinity for, and adherence to, a secular and scientific approach can be called a religion. What's the essential difference between this approach and Santorum's theistic religiosity? It isn't just that Santorum chooses to believe in, and act in accordance with, Christian mythology and doctrine. Although that's an indicator of the deeper, the essential, problem, imho, with people like Santorum.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

My affinity for, and adherence to, a secular and scientific approach can be called a religion.

If everything is religion, then the only reason for being against Santorum is religion.

 

[MarcoD]

My affinity for, and adherence to, a secular and scientific approach can be called a religion.

Your adherence maybe, but that doesn't make science a religion. Hey, I am skeptical in everything, blind faith in scientists is a bad thing, IMO. But to substitute that for the believe that some ghost is meddling in the affairs of carbon based collections of molecules, and actually has an opinion on how these collections should interact? Baloney.

 

[ThomasT]

If everything is religion, then the only reason for being against Santorum is religion.

There's the religious adherence to a method of empirical inquiry and evaluation ... eg., science and standard logic. And then there's the religious adherence to a dogma based on mythology ... eg., Christianity, Islam, etc. What's the difference? Is the difference a matter of religion, or something else?

I'm opposed to people like Santorum. But not because they're, in the general sense, religious. I'm a religious adherent to the scientific method of inquiry and standard logic. What's the difference between the religiosity of a person like me and a person like Santorum, and why does Santorum's form of religiosity make him a bad candidate for president?

 

[ThomasT]

Your adherence maybe, but that doesn't make science a religion.

Oh I think it's a religion. Just not a religion based on unfalsifiable metaphysical constructs and ancient dogma.

Hey, I am skeptical in everything, blind faith in scientists is a bad thing, IMO. But to substitute that for the believe that some ghost is meddling in the affairs of carbon based collections of molecules, and actually has an opinion on how these collections should interact? Baloney.

Ok, I agee. But to make the point, I think that, just as there are good assumptions and bad assumptions, good arguments and bad arguments, there are good religions and bad religions. So, why is science and logic a better religion than, say, Christianity?

 

[MarcoD]

So, why is science and logic a better religion than, say, Christianity?

Science is not religion. If it works well, it's a bunch of skeptics constructing a 'building' of verifiable truths. Now you can doubt whether it works well, and you can also doubt whether some scientists don't want to turn it into a religion, but it remains science.

Whatever, given the recent Islamist debates in my country I tried to understand religion, studied it, and now don't give a hoots about it anymore. As far as I am concerned, any religion interferes with personal freedoms. You can adopt Christianity for some gay bashing, or Islam for free virginity tests for young females, I don't care. They're all sex-crazy.

 

[Hobin]

Oh I think it's a religion. Just not a religion based on unfalsifiable metaphysical constructs and ancient dogma.

Doesn't that almost by definition not make it a religion? Eh, the definition of religion is vague enough as it is - some would argue, for example, that Buddhism isn't a religion but a philosophy because they don't worship a god. In that sense, science wouldn't be a religion. On the other hand, if we consider everything that has X amount of believers a religion, then it would be.

I have to agree that science is ultimately based on a few assumptions: we *assume* that the principle of induction works (for example). The difference with religion is that these assumptions are made for pragmatic reasons - inductive reasoning has given us some pretty impressive results so far, so there is little reason to presume that it is incorrect . Religion has no such excuse.

I'm a devout believer of science. But I don't believe it just because someone has taught me to, or because, well, just because. I believe in science because it works.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

There's the religious adherence to a method of empirical inquiry and evaluation ... eg., science and standard logic. And then there's the religious adherence to a dogma based on mythology ... eg., Christianity, Islam, etc. What's the difference? Is the difference a matter of religion, or something else?

I'm opposed to people like Santorum. But not because they're, in the general sense, religious. I'm a religious adherent to the scientific method of inquiry and standard logic. What's the difference between the religiosity of a person like me and a person like Santorum, and why does Santorum's form of religiosity make him a bad candidate for president?

There's your answer WhoWee. Yes, I think, unless it's no.

 

[ThomasT]

Science is not religion. If it works well, it's a bunch of skeptics constructing a 'building' of verifiable truths. Now you can doubt whether it works well, and you can also doubt whether some scientists don't want to turn it into a religion, but it remains science.

Science is a method of inquiry. If I religiously adhere to that method of inquiry, then am I being religious wrt the scientific method ... is science then my religion?

Whatever, given the recent Islamist debates in my country I tried to understand religion, studied it, and now don't give a hoots about it anymore. As far as I am concerned, any religion interferes with personal freedoms. You can adopt Christianity for some gay bashing, or Islam for free virginity tests for young females, I don't care. They're all sex-crazy.

Ok, take it easy. Personally, I would like to see the eradication of theistic religion. But I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen in my lifetime. So, I'm just trying to be really cool and logical about why I think Santorum is a bad candidate for public office.

 

[Gokul43201]

So, why is science and logic a better religion than, say, Christianity?

It's not a better religion, because it's not a religion. We have some amount of faith in science because it has time and time again delivered on it's promises. You can can fall ill today and go to a doctor for treatment, or you can pray for a recovery. You can throw your computer out the window and use science to figure out when it will crash to the ground, or you can ask for divine inspiration. When your faith in something is not quite blind, but based on a proven track record of reliable results, that takes it out of the realm of a religion. But if you placed equal faith in a scientist calculating the current flowing through a resistor, and one calculating the chance of rain a week hence, then you are probably being religious with your faith in science.

Also, if you want to continue on this topic, I suggest you frame an OP that satisfies the Philo guidelines and start a thread there.

To the mods: Maybe the last few posts (incl this one) should be deleted?

 

[ThomasT]

There's your answer WhoWee. Yes, I think, unless it's no.

You are deep and inscrutable. Therefore I might no longer reply to your posts, unless I do.

 

[ThomasT]

It's not a better religion, because it's not a religion.

Here's one accepted definition of the word, religion. The way I was using the term.
"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." (from the Free Dictionary -- you can Google it.)

The principle is the scientific method. And I pursue it with zeal and conscientious devotion. So, I am, by definition, a religious zealot.

What's the difference between somebody like me and somebody like Santorum (also, self professed, a religious zealot).

When your faith in something is not quite blind, but based on a proven track record of reliable results, that takes it out of the realm of a religion.

Not according to a conventional (see above) connotation/definition of the term.

Wrt deleting posts, keep in mind that Santorum is theistically religious and that this orientation is one of his main appeals to a certain portion of the American electorate.

I'm making a point here, so please don't go about deleting posts until you fully understand what the point is ... which I'm not sure you do yet.

 

[Hobin]

Not according to a conventional (see above) connotation/definition of the term.

I think the problem here is that the definition of religion isn't all that clear-cut. When I did a quick search for religion, what I found was

Google:
"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods."

Merriam-Webster:
"a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices"

Dictionary.reference.com:
re·li·gion
   [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

The Free Dictionary:
re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

According to some of these definitions, science is a religion. In other definitions, it isn't. Since the definition of religion is so vague, let's just say that the difference between you and Santorum is that Santorum has a set of unalsifiable beliefs that cause him to make ridiculous decisions, whereas you base your decisions on the pragmatic assumptions made in science.

 

[MarcoD]

So, I'm just trying to be really cool and logical about why I think Santorum is a bad candidate for public office.

I don't have an opinion on Santorum, except for that he seems to base his decisions on a load of nonsense. Seriously, have you ever read a Christian or Islamic explanation why the world should be what it is on the basis of scripture? I don't want to have to do anything with them. Or to quote an american comedian: "It's all BS folks. And it's bad for ya."

 

[Fredrik]

I don't think anyone would agree with definition 4 from the free dictionary. According to that definition, almost everything is a religion.

I strongly disagree with the idea that it makes any kind of sense to describe science, or rational thinking in general as a religon, or a faith. Religion requires faith. Faith is the ability to continue to believe in things that have pretty much been proven false. Science is as far from religion as one can possibly get.

 

[Gokul43201]

ThomasT: I hope you never discover www.free-online-neurosurgery.com

Easy 5-Step Guide to Performing your own Craniotomy

You will need:
-sharp kitchen knife
-sewing kit
-dremel tool
...

Back to Santorum: it's entirely possible he will get as many delegates out of MI as Romney does, and as of yesterday, was looking poised to do pretty well on Super Tuesday. The nail in Gingrich's coffin will be if Santorum wins Georgia.

 

[ThomasT]

I don't think anyone would agree with definition 4 from the free dictionary.

Why would you think that? Anyway, it isn't a matter of whether one agrees with a published definition. It's published because it's part of the conventional vernacular. It might not be the most common connotation of the word. But it is a connotation of the word. And it's something that theistic religious fanatics, like certain Christians and Muslims, use every now and then to equate their religiosity to, say, a zealous and conscientious adherence to standard logic and the scientific method.

So, what I'm asking is, how is Santorum's self professed zealous and conscientious adherence to Christian mythology/doctrine different from your or my zealous and conscientious adherence to standard logic and the scientific method? Why is one better than the other?

According to that definition, almost everything is a religion.

I strongly disagree with the idea that it makes any kind of sense to describe science, or rational thinking in general as a religon, or a faith. Religion requires faith. Faith is the ability to continue to believe in things that have pretty much been proven false. Science is as far from religion as one can possibly get.

These are the sorts of statements that will cause you to lose arguments with fanatical Christians. They will laugh at you.

 

[ThomasT]

ThomasT: I hope you never discover www.free-online-neurosurgery.com

Apparently you don't really hope that.

 

[MarcoD]

But it is a connotation of the world. And it's something that theistic religious fanatics, like certain Christians and Muslims, use every now and then to equate their religiosity to, say, a zealous and conscientious adherence to standard logic and the scientific method.

If you're a scientist you approach everything, even your own beliefs and methods, with a healthy dose of skepticism in the pursuit of truths. So, zealot? Maybe. But it beats taking things on blind faith, IMO.

 

[ThomasT]

According to some of these definitions, science is a religion. In other definitions, it isn't. Since the definition of religion is so vague, let's just say that the difference between you and Santorum is that Santorum has a set of unalsifiable beliefs that cause him to make ridiculous decisions, whereas you base your decisions on the pragmatic assumptions made in science.

Ok, thanks, now we're getting somewhere. Which of Santorum's decisions/actions are ridiculous, and why?

 

[MarcoD]

Ok, thanks, now we're getting somewhere. Which of Santorum's decisions/actions are ridiculous, and why?

Nah, that's BS too. The fact that he is religious doesn't imply that he would be taking ridiculous decision. Irrational maybe. Based on nonsense maybe. Or based on emotion maybe. But of course it is possible to do everything right on an irrational basis. It's just that I personally believe doing stuff right on a rational basis.

But I am going to butt out of this discussion. It's up to US voters, not me.

Well, unless I see something very interesting, of course.

 

[Number Nine]

Ok, thanks, now we're getting somewhere. Which of Santorum's decisions/actions are ridiculous, and why?

His belief that 10% of all deaths in the Netherlands are due to involuntary euthanasia is one example. His belief that gays are responsible for the economic crisis is another (actually, everything he believes about gays qualifies).

 

[Fredrik]

Why would you think that?

Because that definition is nothing at all like any of the others, and because it would mean that almost everything is a religion. To download pornography can be an "activity pursued with zeal". To run a campaign to bring back Firefly can be a "cause pursued with conscientious devotion". According to that definition, these things are both religions. That's why it's an absurd definition.

Anyway, it isn't a matter of whether one agrees with a published definition. It's published because it's part of the conventional vernacular.

I doubt that you know anything about why this was published. I don't think anyone considers that definition "conventional".

It might not be the most common connotation of the word. But it is a connotation of the world. And it's something that theistic religious fanatics, like certain Christians and Muslims, use every now and then to equate their religiosity to, say, a zealous and conscientious adherence to standard logic and the scientific method.

Yes, religious nuts sometimes claim that the word should mean something like this, just so that they can make the absurdly false claim that science is just another religion. This is very similar to how they also claim that the big bang theory says that "first there was nothing, and then it exploded". They do these things to make other people seem as irrational as they are. They use these tactics not to win arguments, but to allow themselves to stay ignorant.

It makes no sense for us to adopt their crazy definitions.

So, what I'm asking is, how is Santorum's self professed zealous and conscientious adherence to Christian mythology/doctrine different from your or my zealous and conscientious adherence to standard logic and the scientific method? Why is one better than the other?

Do you really need me to tell you why knowledge obtained using scientific methods is more reliable than stuff we can read in a 2000-year-old book written by people with zero understanding of anything?

These are the sorts of statements that will cause you to lose arguments with fanatical Christians. They will laugh at you.

Of course they would. That's how they deal with uncomfortable truths.

 

[ThomasT]

If you're a scientist you approach everything, even your own beliefs and methods, with a healthy dose of skepticism in the pursuit of truths. So, zealot? Maybe. But it beats taking things on blind faith, IMO.

Of course I agree with you. I'm zealous in my skepticism. I'm zealous in my requirement of physical evidence. I'm quite religious in my adherence to standard logic and the scientific method in my quest to improve my understanding of the world. I'm a fanatic.

 

[Hobin]

Of course I agree with you. I'm zealous in my skepticism. I'm zealous in my requirement of physical evidence. I'm quite religious in my adherence to standard logic and the scientific method in my quest to improve my understanding of the world. I'm a fanatic.

In other words, not all forms of fanaticism were created equal.

 

[ThomasT]

@ Fredrik,
I suppose I should discontinue my involvement in this discussion. But you have to admit that it did get a few interesting replies.

The point is that Santorum and his ardent supporters are (for the most part, I'm assuming) theistic religious zealots. So, I'm wondering how best to deal with this, eg., wrt ad hoc conversations with various people, some of whom might be theistic religious zealots as well as Santorum supporters.

 

[ThomasT]

In other words, not all forms of fanaticism were created equal.

According to what criteria?

 

[Hobin]

According to what criteria?

Pragmatism. Scientific hypotheses are falsifiable, whereas religious beliefs are not. When hypotheses turn out to be correct or incorrect, we've learned something valuable. In practice, everyone knows that, but in a heated debate people tend to forget.

 

[Pythagorean]

There's a widely accepted definition of religion. The attempt to homogenize the definition is not very useful or genuine. The whole last page was basically a pointless semantic argument in an attempt to justify comparing religion to science.

 

[ThomasT]

There's a widely accepted definition of religion. The attempt to homogenize the definition is not very useful or genuine. The whole last page was basically a pointless semantic argument in an attempt to justify comparing religion to science.

Apparently you haven't argued with many clever, cunning, shrewd fanatical Christians. And I might say that semantic arguments/considerations are, always, very important. Anyway, it wasn't a matter of homogenizing the definition of religion. The fact of the matter is that if you're a conscientiously zealous adherent to the principles of standard logic and the scientific method, then, by definition, you're a religious adherent wrt those principles. It's just a word, and that's one of its conventional connotations.

 

[Galteeth]

Apparently you haven't argued with many clever, cunning, shrewd fanatical Christians. And I might say that semantic arguments/considerations are, always, very important.

It's impossible to debate with someone who doesn't have a problem with tautological reasoning. No Venn intersection of reality.

 

[Gokul43201]

Thomas:

A useful trait for a definition to have is that besides describing the thing it intends to describe, it shouldn't also describe everything else under the sun.

'A person that takes lives by intentionally swinging an axe at them' describes an axe-murderer, but also describes a woodcutter, or a class of hunter. Your preferred definition of religion is even broader than that. It's like defining an axe-murderer as a person that swings an implement to a calculated end.

The only defense I have for that definition is that it is perhaps referring to a metaphorical - almost idiomatic - use of the word 'religion'.

As in: 'Hockey is a religion in Canada'.

But in your defense, if you can not see a difference between Santorum's faith in the preachings of the Catholic Church, and your own faith in the scientific method, then perhaps you do treat science as a religion, and maybe you are indeed a religious fanatic, as you suspect.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Apparently you haven't argued with many clever, cunning, shrewd fanatical Christians.

These are the sorts of statements that will cause you to lose arguments with fanatical Christians. They will laugh at you.

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

 

[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