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

[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?

 

[lisab]

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

What does "<>" mean?

Oh sorry...it was used in programming years ago. Guess that shows my age . It means, does not equal.

 

[ThomasT]

Oh sorry...it was used in programming years ago. Guess that shows my age . It means, does not equal.

That's what I thought you meant, but I wasn't sure. In which case, I would say that atheism connotes anti-theistic religion. But yes, this is a bit off topic.

Then again, Santorum is a self-avowed theistic religious fanatic. So maybe at least some discussion of this is appropriate for this thread. I don't know, and defer to the moderators.

 

[WhoWee]

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

Label this post IMO. It's very possible we've already had an atheist President - just kept it a secret. If religion isn't made an issue, I'm not certain anyone would care.

However, to your point about an openly atheist candidate, if they chose to attack Christianity specifically - I don't think they'd have a chance of being elected. If the said they just don't belong to a church or subscribe to a religion - and didn't try to sell their philosophy - I think they would be electable based on issues.

As for the person who goes to church for weddings, funerals and the occassional special event - it's not likely they'll vote for someone because the church made an endorsement. However, if that religion is attacked by a candidate I would anticipate they would defend their religion in the same fashion a nationality, or a fraternity, or a school/neighborhood bond might be defended.

 

[SixNein]

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

If I recall from Spartan history, they use to assign soldier lovers to students of military. The idea was that they would better protect each other. And quite frankly, Spartans bull dozed armies for a very long time in the ancient world. So I don't buy this stuff.

 

[SixNein]

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.

In my opinion, people not only vote according to their religion, but they think of government in a religious fashion. Facts, analysis, and reasoning just simply don't matter that much. Just look at some of the attacks on science. And many of these political ideologies have become a religion to most people. In the south where I live, there even seems to be some kind of anti-educaiton culture. I've had so many people warn me about taking science because those evil professors will turn me against God. I've never had a professor encourage atheism.

At any rate, I think America is so religious because our distribution model is severely flawed. Our production keeps increasing, but you don't see improvement in much of the population; instead, it seems to be concentrated towards the top. So when a comparison is made between America and other industrialized nations, America is an outlier on religion, and it appears to be more inline with developing nations. In my opinion, this is a result of high inequality in America.

 

[MarcoD]

Oooh! I always thought the Dutch are completely irrelevant (internationally)? Now this?

 

[Hobin]

I'm Dutch, and I laughed out loud when I read about that in the newspaper.

...Then I realized that guy might become president.

Also, the Dutch aren't *that* irrelevant. I think. Right? A little relevant? Maybe? *hides behind his cheese, herring and tulips*

 

[turbo]

I haz no herring or tulips! What do I do!?

 

[Hobin]

I haz no herring or tulips! What do I do!?

Quick! Hide behind that windmill over there!

 

[MarcoD]

Also, the Dutch aren't *that* irrelevant. I think. Right? A little relevant? Maybe? *hides behind his cheese, herring and tulips*

I always substitute 'Finland,' a country I almost know nothing about, when 'grand' claims are made. Most people from the rest of the world are clueless, don't know where the Netherlands is situated, don't know much about the people, don't know we're a monarchy, don't have any clue why they should notice, might think we're a brand of German, etc.

I'ld say we're largely unknown, and almost utterly irrelevant except in our small corner of the world.

 

[Alfi]

I always substitute 'Finland,' a country I almost know nothing about, when 'grand' claims are made. Most people from the rest of the world are clueless, don't know where the Netherlands is situated, don't know much about the people, don't know we're a monarchy, don't have any clue why they should notice, might think we're a brand of German, etc.

I'ld say we're largely unknown, and almost utterly irrelevant except in our small corner of the world.

lol - thanks
nice post .


nothing to do with Rick Santorum ... but thanks.

 

[MarcoD]

Ah well. It's not that I don't like my little country, I absolutely adore it. But "A beacon of light?" Or something close to that? I mean, get real.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

So women should be disallowed from serving in the front lines because men lack the discipline to stick to the mission?

 

[ThomasT]

So women should be disallowed from serving in the front lines because men lack the discipline to stick to the mission?

Good point. I've known a number of women who I think are stronger than me emotionally and intellectually, and can physically do what might be required of them in combat. But some people want to exclude willing female candidates for combat because of obsolete historical views about women.

Santorum's views are, at least in part, imo, impaired by his adherence to obsolete historical and mythological perspectives. Given his current orientation he isn't, in my view, fit to be the chief executive of the most powerful country in the world. Compared to Santorum, Obama and the current GOP contenders seem much more sophisticated, much wiser, imho.

 

[Char. Limit]

Good point. I've known a number of women who I think are stronger than me emotionally and intellectually, and can physically do what might be required of them in combat. But some people want to exclude willing female candidates for combat because of obsolete historical views about women.

Santorum's views are, at least in part, imo, impaired by his adherence to obsolete historical and mythological perspectives. Given his current orientation he isn't, in my view, fit to be the chief executive of the most powerful country in the world. Compared to Santorum, Obama and the current GOP contenders seem much more sophisticated, much wiser, imho.

I don't know how you see it, but the way I see it, Santorum IS one of the current GOP contenders. Unless you mean the others, but Gingrich and Paul aren't exactly better.

 

[WhoWee]

Good point. I've known a number of women who I think are stronger than me emotionally and intellectually, and can physically do what might be required of them in combat. But some people want to exclude willing female candidates for combat because of obsolete historical views about women.

Are you certain that he just doesn't want to see American women tortured/raped by animals?

 

[Char. Limit]

Good point. I've known a number of women who I think are stronger than me emotionally and intellectually, and can physically do what might be required of them in combat. But some people want to exclude willing female candidates for combat because of obsolete historical views about women.

Are you certain that he just doesn't want to see American women tortured/raped by animals?

Well that's out there. Got any sources to show that's even remotely possible? Because... well, that's out there.

 

[ThomasT]

I don't know how you see it, but the way I see it, Santorum IS one of the current GOP contenders. Unless you mean the others, but Gingrich and Paul aren't exactly better.

Yes, I meant the others. Imho, Gingrich and Paul are better than Santorum wrt certain criteria. Among them are Santorum's apparent male chauvinism (ok, maybe this doesn't separate him from Gingrich), and Santorum's adherence to ancient mythological (ie., fundamental Christian) views (ok, maybe this doesn't separate him from Paul either).

I guess I should just sum it up as Santorum coming across as, to me, a simple-minded religious fanatic.

But of course I could be quite wrong wrt my impression of Santorum. I hope so, considering that he might very well emerge as the GOP nominee.

 

[ThomasT]

Are you certain that he just doesn't want to see American women tortured/raped by animals?

Or women in general? No, I'm not certain of that. But I don't think that's the case. Santorum is, as far as I can tell, a rather simple minded religious fanatic. Not fit for public office.

 

[Hobin]

But of course I could be quite wrong wrt my impression of Santorum. I hope so, considering that he might very well emerge as the GOP nominee.

As far as I can see (using my clouded West-European vision ), Romney, Gingrich and Paul are campaigning along the lines of "Yes, religion is very important, and it should definitely have an impact on our laws. Especially christianity. MY brand of christianity."

Santorum, on the other hand, seems to me to be more the kind of person who's all "ZOMG People are pagans, sinners and unholy beings in general! You will all BURN for your sins! We, the christians of faith, are a minority and have the right to actively fight everything unholy in this world. DIE DIE DIE!"

...But maybe that's just me.

 

[ThomasT]

As far as I can see (using my clouded West-European vision ), Romney, Gingrich and Paul are campaigning along the lines of "Yes, religion is very important, and it should definitely have an impact on our laws. Especially christianity. MY brand of christianity."

Santorum, on the other hand, seems to me to be more the kind of person who's all "ZOMG People are pagans, sinners and unholy beings in general! You will all BURN for your sins! We, the christians of faith, are a minority and have the right to actively fight everything unholy in this world. DIE DIE DIE!"

...But maybe that's just me.

I don't think it's just you. It's always good to get the perspective of somebody who doesn't live in the US. Where are you?

 

[Hobin]

I don't think it's just you. It's always good to get the perspective of somebody who doesn't live in the US. Where are you?

The Netherlands. I think you could see it in my profile.

Admittedly, I might hold a rather skewed view of politics in the USA, given that I'm not actively involved, so most of the things I've seen are the 'top-rated' stories (and thus the stories that make people think your presidential candidates are idiots). When I try to get a broader view of a candidate's political positions, I check Wikipedia - which I think might not be the most reliable source, given the (almost by definition) controversial nature of politics.

In other words, don't take my opinion too seriously.

 

[CAC1001]

The Israelis tried putting women in combat back in the 1960s and it didn't work. Men are biologically programmed to be protective of women. If you don't think that, then tell me what you'd think of the following situation:

A man and a woman are at home sleeping in bed. A thug starts trying to break in. So the man grabs the children and hides in the closet, leaving his woman to go handle the thug. Now imagine the man trying to explain that to a television news person interviewing them on what happened. People would wonder what on Earth was wrong with that man. It doesn't matter how brave the woman is, that's just the reality of it. And I don't care what anybody says, an injured women crying out in pain has a mental affect on a man different than the same happening to a fellow man.

The other problems with women in combat are simply physical. Women do not have the physical strength for being a combat soldier. There is a large, significant, strength and size differential between men and women.

We have separate men's and women's sports teams. Try making women play on men's hockey teams and soccer teams and so forth. You'd wipe all women out of the sports.

We have separate physical fitness standards for male and female police.
We have separate physical fitness standards for male and female firefighters.
We have separate physical fitness standards for men and women in the military. Why? Because if you made women adhere to the same standards as the men, you'd disqualify a massive number of women from military service.

I am 5'10, 144 lbs, which is pretty thin by man standards and not tall. Maybe slightly above-average in terms of height. Now despite that, I am still stronger than 95% of the women out there. The only women who would be stronger than me are serious athletes who do a lot of strength training. 5'10, 144 lbs is nothing special for a man, but a 5'10, 144 lb woman is pretty big for a woman. That's a real long, tall Sally, if you will. Most women are shorter than 5'10 and if fit, around 100 - 130 lbs.

This creates some major problems when you're talking a job like infantry, where the standard combat load for an 82nd Airborne Division infantryman in Iraq was 130 lbs. Carrying all that weight does hell on a man's body, let alone a woman's:

http://www.vva1036.org/_/rsrc/1309111959257/pictures/soldier%20kneeling.jpg?height=304&width=400

And that's just standard infantry. To be in something like Special Operations (SEALs, Rangers, Special Forces, etc...), the requirements for marching distance and so forth are much higher.

Now one could say that they should only let women in who could meet the standard, but that wouldn't happen. You'd have so many women fail, that sexism would be cried, and they'd have to push a certain number through. They do this already at Airborne School, which is one of the easiest schools in the military. There's a one pullup requirement. If you can't accomplish one pullup, you're supposed to be disqualified. Do they disqualify all the girls who can't do one pullup though? NOPE, because they'd fail most of them then. It only really applies if you're a guy. To join the Marine Corps, men have to be able to do pullups. The Marine Corps PFT (Physical Fitness Test) is pullups, situps, and a three-mile run. But what is the upper-body test for a woman? A flexed-arm hang. Why? Because requiring girls to do pullups in order to join the Marine Corps would disqualify a whole lot of them. In the Army, the PFT is pushups, situps, and a two-mile run. For the 18-24 year-old men, the minimum number of pushups to pass is 40 in two minutes. What is it for the women? Managing 40 pushups in two minutes is maxing the pushups portion of the PT test for a female.

And even then, the PFTs are misleading. A woman might be capable of acing the men's PFTs for both the Army and Marine Corps, but that just means she can do lots of calisthenics and running. Load her up with a heavy amount of gear, turning her into a pack mule, and then see how far she can march. The PFTs don't really reflect the fitness needed for a combat soldier, they're just physical fitness tests created to have a base standard of PT in the military branches.

Then there's the hygiene issue. Having a vagina creates some serious hygiene problems for women if they are unable to keep that area clean constantly, an issue that men do not have. I think bravery and intelligence-wise, women are equal to men and can do things like fly helicopters and fighter planes just the same, but combat, that is trying to deny millions of years of evolution in terms of programmed behavior and physical capability.

 

[MarcoD]

As far as I can see (using my clouded West-European vision ), Romney, Gingrich and Paul are campaigning along the lines of "Yes, religion is very important, and it should definitely have an impact on our laws. Especially christianity. MY brand of christianity."

Santorum, on the other hand, seems to me to be more the kind of person who's all "ZOMG People are pagans, sinners and unholy beings in general! You will all BURN for your sins! We, the christians of faith, are a minority and have the right to actively fight everything unholy in this world. DIE DIE DIE!"

...But maybe that's just me.

Well, I should say we shouldn't discuss this stuff. You might just have offended a lot of people with that comment. Btw, I am Dutch too. Seriously, you have no idea what you are getting involved in; US culture is substantially different from northern Europe, and the US is a religious place. You'll just end up insulting a lot of people if you project popular Dutch opinion on the US.

 

[WhoWee]

Well that's out there. Got any sources to show that's even remotely possible? Because... well, that's out there.

It seems to me the country is still squirmish over the Jessica Lynch story. If you google her - you'll find more stories that she wasn't tortured and raped than those that claim she was - again - seems squirmish to me.