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

[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?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

That should lock up the hypocrite vote pretty tight.

 

[mheslep]

Seriously? And what is his definition of pornography, scantily clad women? ...

He says, "hard core" porn. Well, I know what that means. He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.

Current federal “obscenity” laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier. Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. “If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”

 

[lisab]

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?

I'm sure there are lots who would agree with him, while they're in church. But in the privacy of their own homes...

 

[Evo]

He says, "hard core" porn. Well, I know what that means. He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.

There is nothing about "hardcore porn" in any laws that I could find. As far as "obscenity" goes, that's not clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_States

I have no idea what Santorum is referring to unless it is the vague test that can be used to decide if something is obscene and can be prohibited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

IMO, Santorum is one scary person.

 

[Char. Limit]

He says, "hard core" porn. Well, I know what that means. He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.

Since you know what "hardcore" porn means, please, do give an exact definition. And then point to the area in the legal code where it says hardcore porn is illegal.

 

[mheslep]

Since you know what "hardcore" porn means, please, do give an exact definition.

Graphic depiction of sex. There are, BTW, obscenity guidelines on PF. Do you have any problem with understanding those: "depicting obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic..."?

And then point to the area in the legal code where it says hardcore porn is illegal.

Why? Did you read my prior post?

 

[lisab]

There is nothing about "hardcore porn" in any laws that I could find. As far as "obscenity" goes, that's not clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_States

I have no idea what Santorum is referring to unless it is the vague test that can be used to decide if something is obscene and can be prohibited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

IMO, Santorum is one scary person.

But just think how many jobs will be created by trying to enforce a law against hardcore porn! We'd create a Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vices*, which would soon be bigger than the TSA, commensurate with the "problem" it's trying to solve.

* if "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vices" doesn't ring a bell - google it.

 

[lisab]

Graphic depiction of sex.

That's in most R rated movies -- I don't think it's hardcore.

 

[mheslep]

That's in most R rated movies -- I don't think it's hardcore.

Eh, not graphic. R doesn't show genitals doing their thing.

 

[Evo]

Graphic depiction of sex. There are, BTW, obscenity guidelines on PF. Do you have any problem with understanding those: "depicting obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic..."?

Santorum is talking about at the federal level. Where you not referring to a federal definition? If not, I don't see the point of your post. Forum rules are a far cry from what Santorum is claiming, no?

Since you know what "hardcore" porn means, please, do give an exact definition. And then point to the area in the legal code where it says hardcore porn is illegal.

You still haven't answered Char's request.

 

[mheslep]

Santorum is talking about at the federal level. Where you not referring to a federal definition? If not, I don't see the point of your post. Forum rules are a far cry from what Santorum is claiming, no?

The reference to the PF case was to make the point that decency rules have been set down here without a great deal of confusion about what those terms mean, and PF rules are clearly far more restrictive than banning hardcore porn.

 

[Char. Limit]

The reference to the PF case was to make the point that decency rules have been set down here without a great deal of confusion about what those terms mean, and PF rules are clearly far more restrictive than banning hardcore porn.

There's a nice difference between forum rules and federal law - namely, that good federal law HAS to be exact. Vague federal laws aren't good federal laws. You can't say the same about forum rules.

 

[mheslep]

You still haven't answered Char's request.

From before...

... He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.

 

[micromass]

Graphic depiction of sex. There are, BTW, obscenity guidelines on PF. Do you have any problem with understanding those: "depicting obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic..."?

As much as I value the PF rules, they do not make a legal document. Hence, they don't really need exact definitions.

Since you are talking about an actual law, then you DO need an exact definition. Can you give us the exact definition??

 

[Evo]

The reference to the PF case was to make the point that decency rules have been set down here without a great deal of confusion about what those terms mean, and PF rules are clearly far more restrictive than banning hardcore porn.

Still waiting for the federal law Santorum is referring to that makes "hardcore porn" illegal.

He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.

From the links I posted, apparently it is not true. There are vague guidelines for obscenity that is determined at the local/state level. I can't find anything more specific. Maybe Santorum doesn't know the law? You'd think he might have wanted to check that before he made claims.

Seems like he's handed the nomination over to Romney, IMO. Unless more of Santorum's followers would back Newt, I guess that's possible. What a mess if it comes to that, IMO.

 

[mheslep]

There's a nice difference between forum rules and federal law - namely, that good federal law HAS to be exact. Vague federal laws aren't good federal laws.

Agreed, if you substitute 'clear', or widely and easily understood, instead of exact. I don't think the laws should be on the books, especially these laws, if they are not.

...You can't say the same about forum rules.

I'd say that about any set of rules.

 

[micromass]

Agreed, if you substitute 'clear', or widely and easily understood, instead of exact. I don't think the laws should be on the books, especially these laws, if they are not.

No. Laws absolutely need to be exact. Since if they're not exact, then they're vague and up to interpretation. We don't want this.

 

[SixNein]

There is nothing about "hardcore porn" in any laws that I could find. As far as "obscenity" goes, that's not clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_States

I have no idea what Santorum is referring to unless it is the vague test that can be used to decide if something is obscene and can be prohibited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

IMO, Santorum is one scary person.

Hardcore porn would be covered under obscenity laws. And obscenity laws depend on the local community. For internet web sites, it would be a disaster.

 

[micromass]

Hardcore porn would be covered under obscenity laws. And obscenity laws depend on the local community. For internet web sites, it would be a disaster.

Please state the specific law.

 

[SixNein]

There is nothing about "hardcore porn" in any laws that I could find. As far as "obscenity" goes, that's not clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_States

I have no idea what Santorum is referring to unless it is the vague test that can be used to decide if something is obscene and can be prohibited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

IMO, Santorum is one scary person.

That is what he is referring to...

 

[micromass]

And obscenity laws depend on the local community.

So you mean that federal government can't do anything about it. So Santorum can't do anything about porn when he gets elected?
So Santorum is lying?? Is that what you say?

 

[SixNein]

Please state the specific law.

I did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity#United_States_obscenity_law

 

[SixNein]

So you mean that federal government can't do anything about it. So Santorum can't do anything about porn when he gets elected?
So Santorum is lying?? Is that what you say?

He could appoint someone who can enforce it. In other words, bring a lot of cases against internet web sites... in hopefully, very conservative and highly religious communities.

 

[SixNein]

I'm surprised people are surprised. The bush admin made a law (2257 law) where all photographers of sexually explicit material must provide ID's of the models to all buyers of the content. In other words, webmasters buy it, and they get photo ID's too. Imo, it creates a security hazard for the women because anyone pretending to be a webmaster could buy those photos and get the ID's online.

I'm surprised women in America even do it now for fear of being stalked or having their identities stolen. They take a huge risk... but they are mostly young.

 

[Evo]

Hardcore porn would be covered under obscenity laws. And obscenity laws depend on the local community. For internet web sites, it would be a disaster.

The point is that the words "hardcore porn" aren't used in any laws and has no legal meaning. Attempts to federally enforce prosecution of what someone thinks is "obscene" get's thrown out due to not being specific. Santorum said he will appoint an Attorney General just to enforce a vague law on a federal level according to his interpretation? (my opinion of what he's claiming)

(bolding mine)

 

[SixNein]

The point is that the words "hardcore porn" aren't used in any laws and has no legal meaning. Attempts to federally enforce prosecution of what someone thinks is "obscene" get's thrown out due to not being specific. Santorum said he will appoint an Attorney General just to enforce a vague law on a federal level according to his interpretation? (my opinion of what he's claiming)

(bolding mine)

Well yes and no. Hardcore porn generally involves penetration of some kind; as a result, it is a candidate for obscenity. Just ask Larry Flynt. He almost got 25 years for his mag. In fact, he was sentenced to twenty five years, but got off due to a technicality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Flynt#Legal_battles

The chilling effect alone would kill half the sites. Who would risk prison for a few extra bucks a month?

 

[Evo]

Santorum is unbelievable, he really seems to have little knowledge of the law or the constitution, IMO.

Santorum Backtracks on Langauge Stance in Puerto Rico

Rick Santorum tried to mitigate any damage his earlier remarks — in which he said English should be the island's official language — might have done to his campaign

"As in any other state, you have to comply with this and any federal law. And that is that English has to be the main language," he had said to the paper earlier, referring to the commonwealth's upcoming referendum on whether to become a U.S. state. Those comments ignited a firestorm of criticism, with many pointing out that requiring English to be the main language would violate the U.S. Constitution, which does not designate an official national language.

OOOPS. Doesn't this poor man have a paid staff to check these things, or does he just make things up as he goes?

 

[SixNein]

Santorum is unbelievable, he really seems to have little knowledge of the law or the constitution, IMO.

OOOPS. Doesn't this poor man have a paid staff to check these things, or does he just make things up as he goes?

I'm more afraid of his base. Social conservatives seem to desperately want a theocracy. They want to see a Christan Government ruled with a divine pretense. Keep in mind, they elected him into office. Mr. Santorum has served for 12 years as Senator. So he has been a part of our government for more than a decade.

People pay a lot of attention to the President, but they don't care about congress. So they elect people like Santorum and Bachmann and wonder why the government is broken.

all of this is IMO

 

[Galteeth]

The practical effect of a crackdown on pornography would be the loss of jobs, since Santorum can't crack down on foreign-produced pornography.

 

[ThomasT]

Reading through the last few pages in this thread it seems that Santorum is continuing his campaign of expressing, imho, inane opinions on unimportant issues in order to, apparently, appeal to a certain perceived base constituency.

Will the net effect of this keep him from becoming the next US president? Well, I hope so.