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

  • News
  • Thread starter ThomasT
  • Start date
In summary: Apparently Rick thinks that scientists aren't moral and need to be "checked"He didn't say scientists are not moral. He said they are amoral. That is (my opinion) a valid criticism. It is a valid criticism of many human constructs. Businesses are, or can be, amoral; sometimes business can be downright immoral. So can science. The Tuskegee syphilis study was pretty repugnant.This inherent amorality of human constructs is why we need to regulate them. Businesses need to be constrained in what they can and cannot do. So does medical research, weapons research, and just about any other scientific research that unconstrained could adversely
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #177
WhoWee said:
Are you certain that he just doesn't want to see American women tortured/raped by animals?

Wow. Most out-there straw man, *ever*.
 
  • #178
lisab said:
Wow. Most out-there straw man, *ever*.

Why is that a strawman? Wasn't the country holding it's breath when Jessica Lynch was missing?
 
  • #179
In his remarks Monday, Santorum went beyond his usual discussion of the importance of increasing domestic energy production to deliver a blistering attack on environmental activists. He said global warming claims are based on "phony studies," and that climate change science is little more than "political science."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57381369-503544/santorum-democrats-are-anti-science-not-me/
 
  • #180
Office_Shredder said:
Source? When I look for women in the Israeli army I find that they're currently eligible to serve in combat positions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces#Women
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracal_Battalion

Not infantry though from what I understand (from what I've read the Caracal battalion isn't real infantry). Also, even if infantry, Israel doesn't have the same level of PC issues like we have in America simply due to their situation. I think I made a mistake on the 1960s, I should have said the 1948 war; Israel tried using women in combat there for about three weeks, but it was very distracting to the men and then they ended it when a group of women got ambushed and was slaughtered.
 
  • #181
WhoWee said:
Why is that a strawman? Wasn't the country holding it's breath when Jessica Lynch was missing?

Sure, but not because we were all worried what animal is raping her!

Ah well, this is the Santorum thread, isn't it...:rolleyes:
 
  • #182
lisab said:
Sure, but not because we were all worried what animal is raping her!

Ah well, this is the Santorum thread, isn't it...:rolleyes:

Is it mandatory under PC protocol to label my post - IMO - when calling an alleged rapist an animal?
 
  • #183
WhoWee said:
Is it mandatory under PC protocol to label my post - IMO - when calling an alleged rapist an animal?

But I don't see how we can prove that this is any sort of endemic problem. THAT is what's out there. It almost seems to me an assumption of "a lot of army people would probably rape women if they were around, so we shouldn't have women in the army". I don't know how you see it, but that's how I see your argument.
 
  • #184
WhoWee said:
Is it mandatory under PC protocol to label my post - IMO - when calling an alleged rapist an animal?
It might just be me, but I think it is a bit over-the-line to label front-line soldiers as animals. It is true that the military has slackened standards and has recruited some people that might not have been accepted 5-10 years ago, but that doesn't make them "animals" either.
 
  • #185
Char. Limit said:
But I don't see how we can prove that this is any sort of endemic problem. THAT is what's out there. It almost seems to me an assumption of "a lot of army people would probably rape women if they were around, so we shouldn't have women in the army". I don't know how you see it, but that's how I see your argument.

The issue isn't sex in the barracks. I'm referring to the treatment of female soldiers at the hands of their captors.
 
  • #186
turbo said:
It might just be me, but I think it is a bit over-the-line to label front-line soldiers as animals. It is true that the military has slackened standards and has recruited some people that might not have been accepted 5-10 years ago, but that doesn't make them "animals" either.

An enemy soldier that rapes his captive is an animal - IMO.
 
  • #187
WhoWee said:
The issue isn't sex in the barracks. I'm referring to the treatment of female soldiers at the hands of their captors.
There go the goal-posts!
 
  • #188
turbo said:
There go the goal-posts!

Jessica Lynch was captured - read the posts before accusing me of moving the goal posts - please.
 
  • #189
WhoWee said:
The issue isn't sex in the barracks. I'm referring to the treatment of female soldiers at the hands of their captors.

Okay, that's a different argument. I still don't agree with it, but it's a reasonable argument. It's my opinion that captive rape is a form of torture, and thus we should punish anyone who does it as a most severe war crime, but I do not think we should prevent women from joining the front line because of that. You might disagree, and on THAT specific issue, I see your point, but that's my opinion.
 
  • #190
Char. Limit said:
Okay, that's a different argument. I still don't agree with it, but it's a reasonable argument. It's my opinion that captive rape is a form of torture, and thus we should punish anyone who does it as a most severe war crime, but I do not think we should prevent women from joining the front line because of that. You might disagree, and on THAT specific issue, I see your point, but that's my opinion.

I think a woman has the right to make that choice. However, based on the Jessica Lynch event, I don't think the country is prepared for the consequences - hence my squirmish comment.
 
  • #191
Iraqi men were sexually abused and humiliated by our own troops. The idea that only females can be abused sexually is narrow-minded at best. My cousin's daughter was scheduled for deployment to that nasty prison, until she tested positive for pregnancy. The US will deploy women in a war-zone, but not pregnant women.
 
  • #192
turbo said:
Iraqi men were sexually abused and humiliated by our own troops. The idea that only females can be abused sexually is narrow-minded at best. My cousin's daughter was scheduled for deployment to that nasty prison, until she tested positive for pregnancy. The US will deploy women in a war-zone, but not pregnant women.

What is the point of your argument?
 
  • #193
Santorum showing his real colors.

Rick Santorum on Tuesday stood by comments he made in 2008 about Satan attacking the United States, telling reporters here that he is going to “stay on message” and continue to talk about jobs, security, and “taking on forces around this world who want to do harm to America.”

The three-year-old speech is getting renewed scrutiny after several Web-based publications circulated audio and text of his remarks over the holiday weekend. Speaking to a group at Ave Maria University in Naples, Fla., Santorum said, “This is not a political war at all. This is not a cultural war at all. This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies, Satan, would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country: the United States of America.”
bolding mine

He just gets scarier and scarier, IMO. He's going to decide who's good and evil based on his overly zealous religious beliefs?
When reporters asked about the comments at a rally on Tuesday evening, Santorum said, “I believe in good and evil. I think if somehow or another, because you’re a person of faith, you believe in good and evil [and it’s] a disqualifier for president, we’re going to have a very small pool of candidates who can run for president.”

http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-satan-comments-2008-not-relevant-today-232700385.html
 
  • #194
WhoWee said:
What is the point of your argument?
There is no argument. The US will deploy male and female combat troops to the front. Santorum is against that, so if you like him so much, you have to make his arguments.
 
  • #195
Evo said:
Santorum showing his real colors.

He just gets scarier and scarier, IMO. He's going to decide who's good and evil based on his overly zealous religious beliefs?
We have scare-mongers on the right warning against the establishment of "Sharia Law" in the US, but some of them appear to want to establish fundamentalist theology as a foundation of our government. I have problems with that.
 
  • #196
turbo said:
There is no argument. The US will deploy male and female combat troops to the front. Santorum is against that, so if you like him so much, you have to make his arguments.

You weren't trying to argue a point (?)- my mistake.
 
  • #197
If you were Satan, who would you attack, in this day and age? There is no one else to go after, other than, the united states. And that's been the case for now, almost 200 years.
...

Rick Santorum



I'm thinking that this statement doesn't help the Catholic Churches excuse for their sex abuse scandals; That they are under attack from Satan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #198
Evo said:
Santorum showing his real colors.

bolding mine

He just gets scarier and scarier, IMO. He's going to decide who's good and evil based on his overly zealous religious beliefs?

http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-satan-comments-2008-not-relevant-today-232700385.html

Just remember the Rev Wright is still out there with his roosters comming home to roost (stuff) - if you want to revisit speeches made in the pulpit from 2008. President Obama worshiped at the Rev Wright's church for about 20 years - if I recall correctly?
 
  • #199
WhoWee said:
Just remember the Rev Wright is still out there with his roosters comming home to roost (stuff) - if you want to revisit speeches made in the pulpit from 2008. President Obama worshiped at the Rev Wright's church for about 20 years - if I recall correctly?

Sure, but this is Santorum himself speaking. This is what he believes.
 
  • #200
jreelawg said:
Sure, but this is Santorum himself speaking. This is what he believes.

It's obvious to me (my opinion) that anyone who sits in a church for 20 years probably believes what they are hearing from the preacher - or they would go somewhere else - again, my opinion.
 
  • #201
WhoWee said:
It's obvious to me (my opinion) that anyone who sits in a church for 20 years probably believes what they are hearing from the preacher - or they would go somewhere else - again, my opinion.

After going to church for something like 15 years of my life, I actually came out in the opposite direction. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I think that it's pretty easy to just go and sit in a building and pretend to be listening, but not actually care about or believe in what the person is saying to you.
 
  • #202
SHISHKABOB said:
After going to church for something like 15 years of my life, I actually came out in the opposite direction. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I think that it's pretty easy to just go and sit in a building and pretend to be listening, but not actually care about or believe in what the person is saying to you.

I recall a few recent compliance classes that fit nicely into your description.
 
  • #203
WhoWee said:
I recall a few recent compliance classes that fit nicely into your description.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.
 
  • #204
WhoWee said:
It's obvious to me (my opinion) that anyone who sits in a church for 20 years probably believes what they are hearing from the preacher - or they would go somewhere else - again, my opinion.

Obama may or may not have been there when Wright said the controversial things he did. The clips of Wright though, represent a few moments, out of the 20 years Obama had attended. If Wright condemned America for the KKK every sermon, then there would be a whole lot more than the few clips your talking about.

I wonder what Santorum's position is on the US history of slavory? According to him, those times were part of the period prior to the almost 200 years Satan had his sights only on America, and before Satan was successful at corroding the christian foundations of America.
 
Last edited:
  • #205
It seams as thought Santorum is saying that the entire world except the US, has completely fallen to Satan. And, that all US institutions have also fallen, except US politics, of which there is now a spiritual war fighting over.
 
  • #206
jreelawg said:
Obama may or may not have been there when Wright said the controversial things he did. The clips of Wright though, represent a few moments, out of the 20 years Obama had attended. If Wright condemned America for the KKK every sermon, then there would be a whole lot more than the few clips your talking about.

I wonder what Santorum's position is on the US history of slavory? According to him, those times were part of the period prior to the almost 200 years Satan had his sights only on America, and before Satan was successful at corroding the christian foundations of America.

Unless Wright was televised weekly, it might be hard to find evidence either way.
 
  • #207
SHISHKABOB said:
I'm not sure what you mean by that.

It was a joke. I've been attending some very boring lectures lately - having to do with HIPPA/MIPPA compliance.
 
  • #208
jreelawg said:
Obama may or may not have been there when Wright said the controversial things he did. The clips of Wright though, represent a few moments, out of the 20 years Obama had attended. If Wright condemned America for the KKK every sermon, then there would be a whole lot more than the few clips your talking about.

I wonder what Santorum's position is on the US history of slavory? According to him, those times were part of the period prior to the almost 200 years Satan had his sights only on America, and before Satan was successful at corroding the christian foundations of America.

The slavery thing sounds like a strawman emerging - but as you pointed out about Wright - if there's more than one comment it should be easy to source (on Santorum) - no reason to speculate.
 
  • #209
jreelawg said:
Sure, but this is Santorum himself speaking. This is what he believes.

A very important distinction...critical, in fact.
 
  • #210
WhoWee said:
Unless Wright was televised weekly, it might be hard to find evidence either way.
Last I looked, Wright wasn't running for President, so I suggest you stop the red herring tactic.
 

Similar threads

News Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)
9
Replies
293
Views
34K
News Politics - playing the religious card
3
Replies
74
Views
9K
News Can Religious Institutions Discriminate in Hiring Practices?
2
Replies
64
Views
7K
News What Are the Consequences of the Debt Deal for the US Economy?
Replies
27
Views
4K
News Did Scott Brown's Win Signal a Shift in American Political Landscape?
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
News Palin pick an insult to our intelligence
29
Replies
1K
Views
91K
News Renaissance and reaction to Islam.
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
In The United States Today Science, Is Under Attack As Never Before
Replies
12
Views
3K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
9K
News What do you think about the deal with North Korea?
Replies
6
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top