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

[Office_Shredder]

Academia is far from the beginning and end of intellectualism.

Yes but when the argument is that academia fell because smart people are too prideful and hence more vulnerable to Satan than your average American...

 

[MarcoD]

He's a politician. Whatever he says doesn't need to be true as long as it generates sufficient noise and identifies him as 'one of us' to a large enough part of the public.

I am not sure even debating the arguments make sense therefor. (Should be read as: I gave up in my country.)

I see it a lot in my country these days, I don't like it, but it is how it is.

 

[Astronuc]

For the first 150 years, most presidents home-schooled their children at the White House, he said. “Where did they come up that public education and bigger education bureaucracies was the rule in America? Parents educated their children, because it’s their responsibility to educate their children.”

Did Santorum really say that about the first 150 of the nation and presidents. Because I seriously doubt that. I think Santorum is just making stuff up, which is problematic for someone who wants to be the leader of a nation.

If we look at Presidents and various statistics like the dates of birth, age at assumption of presidency, marriage (and date), then we find that most of the presidents were probably older than 40, and had been married for some time, and the kids were probably near or in adulthood by they time these men became president.

Period: 1790-1940 (White House completed around 1800).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0194051.html

Presidents without children
Washington
Madison
Jackson
Polk
Buchanan
Harding

Age of president at assumption of office
Adams - 61 yrs, 125 days
Jefferson - 57 yrs, 325 days
Monroe - 58 yrs, 310 days
Adams, JQ - 57 yrs, 236 days
Van Buren - 54 yrs, 89 days
Harrison - 68 yrs, 23 days
Tyler - 51 yrs, 6 days
Taylor - 64 yrs, 100 days
Fillmore - 50 years, 183 days
Piece - 48 yrs, 101 days
Lincoln - 52 yrs, 20 days
Johnson - 56 yrs, 107 days
Grant - 46 yrs, 311 days
Hayes - 54 yrs, 151 days
Garfield - 59 yrs, 105 days
Arthur - 51 yrs, 349 days
Cleveland - 47 yrs, 351 days
Harrison - 55 yrs, 196 days
McKinely - 54 yrs, 34 days
Roosevelt (T) - 42 yrs, 322 days
Taft - 51 yrs, 34 days
Wilson - 56 yrs, 66 days
Coolidge - 51 yrs, 29 days
Hoover - 54 yrs, 206 days
Roosevelt (F) - 51 yrs, 33 days
Truman - 60 yrs, 339 days
Eisenhower - 62 yrs, 98 days

        President                    1st Inaug.       2nd Inaug.        Marr'd*            
[FONT="Courier New"]George Washington      Apr 30, 1789  Mar 4, 1793    1759 30   no kids   
John Adams             Mar  4, 1797                 1764 33        
Thomas Jefferson       Mar  4, 1801  Mar 4, 1805    1772 29        
James Madison          Mar  4, 1809  Mar 4, 1813    1794 15   no kids   
James Monroe           Mar  4, 1817  Mar 5, 1821    1786 31        
John Quincy Adams      Mar  4, 1825                 1797 28        
Andrew Jackson         Mar  4, 1829  Mar 4, 1833    1791 38   no kids   
Martin Van Buren       Mar  4, 1837                 1807 30        
William H. Harrison    Mar  4, 1841                 1795 46        
John Tyler             Apr  6, 1841                 1813 28   1844 -3
James Knox Polk        Mar  4, 1845                 1824 21   no kids   
Zachary Taylor         Mar  5, 1849                 1810 39        
Millard Fillmore       Jul 10, 1850                 1826 24   1858 -8
Franklin Pierce        Mar  4, 1853                 1834 19        
James Buchanan         Mar  4, 1857                  -        no kids   
Abraham Lincoln        Mar  4, 1861  Mar 4, 1865    1842 19        
Andrew Johnson         Apr 15, 1865                 1827 38        
Ulysses S. Grant       Mar  4, 1869  Mar 4, 1873    1848 21        
Rutherford B. Hayes    Mar  5, 1877                 1852 25        
James A. Garfield      Mar  4, 1881                 1858 23        
Chester Arthur         Sep 20, 1881                 1869 12        
Grover Cleveland       Mar  4, 1885  Mar 4, 1893    1886 -1        
Benjamin Harrison      Mar  4, 1889                 1853 36   1896 -7
William McKinley       Mar  4, 1897  Mar 04, 1901   1871 26        
Theodore Roosevelt     Sep 14, 1901  Mar 04, 1905   1880 21   1886 15
William Howard Taft    Mar 04, 1909                 1886 23        
Woodrow Wilson         Mar 04, 1913  Mar 05, 1917   1885 28   1915 -2
Warren G. Harding      Mar 04, 1921                 1891 30   no kids   
Calvin Coolidge        Aug 03, 1923  Mar 04, 1925   1905 18        
Herbert Hoover         Mar 04, 1929                 1899 30        
F. D. Roosevelt        Mar 04, 1933  Jan 20, 1937   1905 28        
Harry S. Truman        Apr 12, 1945  Jan 20, 1949   1919 26        
Dwight D. Eisenhower   Jan 20, 1953  Jan 21, 1957   1916 37        [/FONT]
* Year of marriage, followed by years between marriage and first inaug.

 

[Galteeth]

It would be more accurate to say a segment of the conservative population have a high need for closure - specifically religious conservatives. The Protestant movement was, among other things, a product of the printing press that made Bibles common enough that a person could read and interpret for themselves what the Bible meant (as opposed to the Catholic religion, which is much more hierarchial, relying on interpretations made by the church leadership). Printed words that can't change are much more static than interpretations which can change over time as new leaders take control.

There's another, larger segment of the population as a whole that feels a little uncomfortable with the idea of 'truths' constantly changing over time as more is learned (granted, the 'truths' are really just the current state of understanding).

You could say the same thing about opponents of the death penalty (usually liberals) as you do about conservatives, since one of the arguments about the death penalty is that people are convicted beyond the shadow of a doubt with scientific evidence, only to have the science disproven and/or changed.

That really has more to do with the imperfect relationship between science and the legal system. In the legal system, proven scientific evidence really means the science was admitted in at least one court case; not that the science was really sound or that the evidence properly applied the science (Compositional analysis of bullet lead, http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Willingham_Hurst_Report.pdf ). As more research is done, the science beyond a lot of forensic evidence changes and there's no guarantee investigation procedures change in a timely manner to accommodate changes, some forensic evidence is admitted with the limitations in the current state of the science ignored, and some "science" admitted in court is simple crack-pottery that at least one lawyer managed to get admitted.

You could also say the same thing about the abortion debate - in fact both sides choose arbitrary dividing lines simply because it's too hard to define any kind of defining dividing line between life and human consciousness based on current science. In fact, when change is gradual, as in a developing embryo, any dividing line winds up being kind of arbitrary when the differences on either side of the line are so small. (In my personal opinion, you could establish a dividing line that's safely before the development of human consciousness without taking it to the point of abolishing birth control or early term abortions, but that's just me.)

Whenever you make the jump from pure research to applied science in almost any area affecting personal lives, the uncertainty leaves many people either wishing for simpler answers or proclaiming no definitive answer is ever possible - not just conservatives.

It seems to me pretty absurd to base moral positions on "scientific evidence." Morality is always based on a notion of the way things should be, not the way they are The fact that murder has existed for as long as humanity doesn't mean that murder isn't immoral. With the death penalty, it seems like its only morally consistent to say the state has the right to execute people or not. How much crime it statistically does or does not prevent doesn't have any bearing on the morality of the act.

 

[WhoWee]

Did Santorum really say that about the first 150 of the nation and presidents. Because I seriously doubt that. I think Santorum is just making stuff up, which is problematic for someone who wants to be the leader of a nation.

If we look at Presidents and various statistics like the dates of birth, age at assumption of presidency, marriage (and date), then we find that most of the presidents were probably older than 40, and had been married for some time, and the kids were probably near or in adulthood by they time these men became president.

Period: 1790-1940 (White House completed around 1800).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0194051.html

Presidents without children
Washington
Madison
Jackson
Polk
Buchanan
Harding

Age of president at assumption of office
Adams - 61 yrs, 125 days
Jefferson - 57 yrs, 325 days
Monroe - 58 yrs, 310 days
Adams, JQ - 57 yrs, 236 days
Van Buren - 54 yrs, 89 days
Harrison - 68 yrs, 23 days
Tyler - 51 yrs, 6 days
Taylor - 64 yrs, 100 days
Fillmore - 50 years, 183 days
Piece - 48 yrs, 101 days
Lincoln - 52 yrs, 20 days
Johnson - 56 yrs, 107 days
Grant - 46 yrs, 311 days
Hayes - 54 yrs, 151 days
Garfield - 59 yrs, 105 days
Arthur - 51 yrs, 349 days
Cleveland - 47 yrs, 351 days
Harrison - 55 yrs, 196 days
McKinely - 54 yrs, 34 days
Roosevelt (T) - 42 yrs, 322 days
Taft - 51 yrs, 34 days
Wilson - 56 yrs, 66 days
Coolidge - 51 yrs, 29 days
Hoover - 54 yrs, 206 days
Roosevelt (F) - 51 yrs, 33 days
Truman - 60 yrs, 339 days
Eisenhower - 62 yrs, 98 days

        President                    1st Inaug.       2nd Inaug.        Marr'd*            
[FONT="Courier New"]George Washington      Apr 30, 1789  Mar 4, 1793    1759 30   no kids   
John Adams             Mar  4, 1797                 1764 33        
Thomas Jefferson       Mar  4, 1801  Mar 4, 1805    1772 29        
James Madison          Mar  4, 1809  Mar 4, 1813    1794 15   no kids   
James Monroe           Mar  4, 1817  Mar 5, 1821    1786 31        
John Quincy Adams      Mar  4, 1825                 1797 28        
Andrew Jackson         Mar  4, 1829  Mar 4, 1833    1791 38   no kids   
Martin Van Buren       Mar  4, 1837                 1807 30        
William H. Harrison    Mar  4, 1841                 1795 46        
John Tyler             Apr  6, 1841                 1813 28   1844 -3
James Knox Polk        Mar  4, 1845                 1824 21   no kids   
Zachary Taylor         Mar  5, 1849                 1810 39        
Millard Fillmore       Jul 10, 1850                 1826 24   1858 -8
Franklin Pierce        Mar  4, 1853                 1834 19        
James Buchanan         Mar  4, 1857                  -        no kids   
Abraham Lincoln        Mar  4, 1861  Mar 4, 1865    1842 19        
Andrew Johnson         Apr 15, 1865                 1827 38        
Ulysses S. Grant       Mar  4, 1869  Mar 4, 1873    1848 21        
Rutherford B. Hayes    Mar  5, 1877                 1852 25        
James A. Garfield      Mar  4, 1881                 1858 23        
Chester Arthur         Sep 20, 1881                 1869 12        
Grover Cleveland       Mar  4, 1885  Mar 4, 1893    1886 -1        
Benjamin Harrison      Mar  4, 1889                 1853 36   1896 -7
William McKinley       Mar  4, 1897  Mar 04, 1901   1871 26        
Theodore Roosevelt     Sep 14, 1901  Mar 04, 1905   1880 21   1886 15
William Howard Taft    Mar 04, 1909                 1886 23        
Woodrow Wilson         Mar 04, 1913  Mar 05, 1917   1885 28   1915 -2
Warren G. Harding      Mar 04, 1921                 1891 30   no kids   
Calvin Coolidge        Aug 03, 1923  Mar 04, 1925   1905 18        
Herbert Hoover         Mar 04, 1929                 1899 30        
F. D. Roosevelt        Mar 04, 1933  Jan 20, 1937   1905 28        
Harry S. Truman        Apr 12, 1945  Jan 20, 1949   1919 26        
Dwight D. Eisenhower   Jan 20, 1953  Jan 21, 1957   1916 37        [/FONT]
* Year of marriage, followed by years between marriage and first inaug.

The New York Times did not actually quote him -regarding 150 years - it's unclear.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/u...iticizes-education-system-and-obama.html?_r=1

Again, IMO - Santorum is his own worst enemy and basically unelectable.

 

[BobG]

It seems to me pretty absurd to base moral positions on "scientific evidence." Morality is always based on a notion of the way things should be, not the way they are The fact that murder has existed for as long as humanity doesn't mean that murder isn't immoral. With the death penalty, it seems like its only morally consistent to say the state has the right to execute people or not. How much crime it statistically does or does not prevent doesn't have any bearing on the morality of the act.

This is true. But groups need to appeal to the undecided and/or neutral if they hope for their moral beliefs to become part of public policy. And, aside from the moral implications of the death penalty itself, one does have to address how many innocent deaths are acceptable in a policy of implementing the death penalty (and is that ratio the same as the number of acceptable convictions of innocent people in the legal system itself). Any absolute system based on morality alone would be virtually incapable of action if required to be error free.

Your point might be more valid on the issue of abortion/ceasing life support for vegetative patients, etc. By picking a moral value of "human life" instead of "human consciousness", one avoids the difficulties involved in defining the latter. It doesn't change the morality of the issue today, but the history of religious stances on abortion seems to suggest that churches shifted to a *moral value of "human life" simply because defining when "human consciousness" occurs is impossible for a church to officially decide. (*Technically, abortion has always been considered morally wrong by religions such as the Catholic church, but the severity of the wrong has varied a lot over time - from "wrong" but nowhere near the wrongness of murder to "wrong" as in equivalent to murder.)

But, even so, one would have to maintain a consistent moral stance (such as the Catholic church's opposition to abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty) or at least explain the differing stances - and the requirement to explain is almost always going to bring in other issues. Once you start slicing and dicing basic moral values and applying them to real life situations, the search for evidence to justify those dividing lines become almost inevitable.

Morality is always based on a notion of the way things should be, not the way they are .

This might be the one big problem I have with most religions. Is the way the world works the way God made them to work? And if it is, isn't that the way the world is supposed to work? And isn't finding a way to deal with the world as it actually does work an indication that it's the way one should act? (Except those questions might be more appropriate in the Philosophy forum.)

 

[JDoolin]

I think, what Republicans don't like is a top-down, bureaucratic, being-told-what-to-do by "experts." If I have a science teacher in high-school who wants to teach the possibility that the world was "created" rather than "evolved" (which I did, in high-school) it's not going to ruin me for life.

We still have some issues that are considered debatable by a large segment of the population, and I think there is some legitimate fear that "experts" might come along and take away the right of teachers to teach what they actually believe, and a legitimate fear that the schools are a place where teachers are required to teach things they don't believe.

This gives rise to what appears to be anti-intellectualism, but I think it is actually, more a reaction to being disrespected and marginalized.

 

[BobG]

I think, what Republicans don't like is a top-down, bureaucratic, being-told-what-to-do by "experts." If I have a science teacher in high-school who wants to teach the possibility that the world was "created" rather than "evolved" (which I did, in high-school) it's not going to ruin me for life.

We still have some issues that are considered debatable by a large segment of the population, and I think there is some legitimate fear that "experts" might come along and take away the right of teachers to teach what they actually believe, and a legitimate fear that the schools are a place where teachers are required to teach things they don't believe.

This gives rise to what appears to be anti-intellectualism, but I think it is actually, more a reaction to being disrespected and marginalized.

I had a few teachers that had that same belief. At the time, that seemed like a perfectly rational sentiment (it was the way I was taught, after all). But how many other jobs where your employer owes you the right to do your job the way you want to do it, even if giving you that freedom eliminates any hope of standardization and compatibility between the products of different employees?

In other words, that's a stance for education(s) being many products created stand alone by independent craftsmen vs education being the product that rolls out at the end of an assembly line. But even if some freedom for free-lancing is given, the end product of each teacher still has to be compatible enough to fit in with the products students will pick up from other teachers.

 

[WhoWee]

I have no idea. It seems like a trend that is well-established and is bound to continue as long as it bears fruit. Does some segment of the voting public want candidates that are no more educated and skilled than themselves? I have a hard time understanding why, because I would love to have candidates that are so smart and skilled that I would love to have a chance to vote for them. A candidate that has a hard time elucidating policy issues or has to resort to jeans-and-flannel-shirt photo-ops with "oh-shucks" ads has no business running for high office.

The last time I looked, Santorum was sporting a sweater vest. Which candidate are you referring to now?

 

[Galteeth]

This might be the one big problem I have with most religions. Is the way the world works the way God made them to work? And if it is, isn't that the way the world is supposed to work? And isn't finding a way to deal with the world as it actually does work an indication that it's the way one should act? (Except those questions might be more appropriate in the Philosophy forum.)

Well,that kind of reminds me of this novel I read where a character was contemplating the notion of destiny, and he was thinking if there was destiny, there was no point i doing anything since destiny would just make whatever happen anyway.

The fallacy there of course, is that by believing such, you are ensuring it is your destiny to do nothing.

This is is kind of how I see the issue of morality you addressed. Like, you could make an argument, well the murder of person X on the whole was a good thing, because person X would have gone on to father a dictator who killed millions.
Except in the real world, no one has access to this kind of information, and it's not even certain whether such information could actually exist. So you have to say, well, if murder is wrong, then the murder of person x was wrong, regardless of the ultimate consequences.

This is an interesting topic, but I agree it would be better to discuss on the philosophy forums.

To bring it back to politics, I do think it is difficult when most people don't think about the basis of their political opinions. There is often a hodge-podge of a priori moral positions and "practical" positions, without a consistent ontological basis that informs them.

 

[SixNein]

It would be more accurate to say a segment of the conservative population have a high need for closure - specifically religious conservatives.

Isn't religion the glue of the conservative base?

“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country,” said Santorum.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...um-jfks-1960-speech-made-me-want-to-throw-up/

 

[mheslep]

Isn't religion the glue of the conservative base?



http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...um-jfks-1960-speech-made-me-want-to-throw-up/

Conservatism is glue of conservatives. The religious right (or left) is another matter.

 

[lisab]

The last time I looked, Santorum was sporting a sweater vest. Which candidate are you referring to now?

I think a guy can sport a tuxedo, leather chaps, or a Stetson. But I don't think it's possible to sport a sweater vest.

 

[JDoolin]

I think, what Republicans don't like is a top-down, bureaucratic, being-told-what-to-do by "experts." If I have a science teacher in high-school who wants to teach the possibility that the world was "created" rather than "evolved" (which I did, in high-school) it's not going to ruin me for life.

We still have some issues that are considered debatable by a large segment of the population, and I think there is some legitimate fear that "experts" might come along and take away the right of teachers to teach what they actually believe, and a legitimate fear that the schools are a place where teachers are required to teach things they don't believe.

This gives rise to what appears to be anti-intellectualism, but I think it is actually, more a reaction to being disrespected and marginalized.

I had a few teachers that had that same belief. At the time, that seemed like a perfectly rational sentiment (it was the way I was taught, after all). But how many other jobs where your employer owes you the right to do your job the way you want to do it, even if giving you that freedom eliminates any hope of standardization and compatibility between the products of different employees?

In other words, that's a stance for education(s) being many products created stand alone by independent craftsmen vs education being the product that rolls out at the end of an assembly line. But even if some freedom for free-lancing is given, the end product of each teacher still has to be compatible enough to fit in with the products students will pick up from other teachers.

Hmmmmm. :) I'm not sure how to parse that sentence I bold-faced. But my point is that Republicans tend to see the schools as a top-down bureaucratic structure which they have no input on. And these bureaucratic "experts" are deciding what your children will learn, whether you agree with them or not.

Meanwhile, Democrats feel exactly the same way. The only difference is that Democrats actually trust the top-down bureaucratic structure to make the right choices of how to educate their children. The Democrat thinks "okay, those people are experts. They've devoted their whole life to studying this. I should trust them on what they're experts in, and I'll worry about what I'm expert in."

The Republican thinks "What do I care what some money-grubbing Washington bureaucrat thinks about how to raise my kids?"

 

[WhoWee]

I think a guy can sport a tuxedo, leather chaps, or a Stetson. But I don't think it's possible to sport a sweater vest.

Given the excitement surrounding his - I'd say he's sporting it.
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/...that_the_gop_candidate_always_wears_one_.html

 

[ThomasT]

Isn't religion the glue of the conservative base?

It might not be the most important thing that all present day Republicans have in common, but, in my experience, it's a contender. When I was growing up, it was Democrats who seemed most theistically religious. Now it seems to be Republicans.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...um-jfks-1960-speech-made-me-want-to-throw-up/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/26/santorum-church-and-state_n_1302246.html

I think that Santorum's comments betray a misunderstanding of the meaning and intent of "separation of church and state". But then, what else is he going to say, what other position could he take, assuming that more or less fanatical Christian catholics and protestants are his fundamental base?

One of the basic tenets of the American form of government is that public policies are not supposed to be based on any sort of appeal to any theistic religious dogma or mythology. Of course that's historically not been the case. There are still many many laws based on Christian doctrine, and it's still the case that a professed non-Christian has little chance of being elected to public office.

 

[ThomasT]

The problem with Santorum's advocacy of home and private schooling, in my current opinion, is that tens of millions of Americans have neither the time for home schooling nor the money for private schooling. Maybe it would be better if everyone could do home or private schooling, but I would submit that probably most people can't do that. So, if that assumption is correct, then Santorum would seem to be a bit out of touch with the general American condition.

 

[BobG]

One of the basic tenets of the American form of government is that public policies are not supposed to be based on any sort of appeal to any theistic religious dogma or mythology. Of course that's historically not been the case. There are still many many laws based on Christian doctrine, and it's still the case that a professed non-Christian has little chance of being elected to public office.

One of the basic tenets of the American form of government is that public policies are not supposed to based on religious dogma, but, historically that hasn't been the case? Isn't that the same as saying the American form of government has historically been based on religious dogma, but you wish it wasn't?

In any event, the first sentence isn't really correct. Most states in the United States had a state religion. The problem is that they didn't all have the same state religion and a few state constitutions even mandated separation of church and state. When it came to creating a federal government for all 13 states, there was no possibility of having a national religion that all 13 could agree on, hence a separation of church and state for the federal government - which isn't the same as saying the American form government was based on separation of church and state, since all 13 states were part of America whether you mean the country or the continent.

None the less, the problems the federal government had when it came to religion is even more relevant today. You couldn't come up with even one state so homogenous in its religious beliefs that a state could survive linking its state government to a church.

 

[ThomasT]

One of the basic tenets of the American form of government is that public policies are not supposed to based on religious dogma, but, historically that hasn't been the case? Isn't that the same as saying the American form of government has historically been based on religious dogma, but you wish it wasn't?

I think it says that politicians have a tendency to say one thing and do another. The fundamental law of the land, the constitution, specifies, wrt my understanding, pretty clearly that no theistic religious dogma should be the basis for the enactment of laws or the establishment of government agencies.

In any event, the first sentence isn't really correct. Most states in the United States had a state religion. The problem is that they didn't all have the same state religion and a few state constitutions even mandated separation of church and state. When it came to creating a federal government for all 13 states, there was no possibility of having a national religion that all 13 could agree on, hence a separation of church and state for the federal government - which isn't the same as saying the American form government was based on separation of church and state, since all 13 states were part of America whether you mean the country or the continent.

If no particular religion is to be favored, then doesn't that entail that no law can be based on any particular religion's doctrines? If so, then it seems that we have, historically, tended to break our own rules on a massive scale. No surprise there. But Santorum seems to be advocating a continuance of that sort of disregard for the fundamental law.

None the less, the problems the federal government had when it came to religion is even more relevant today. You couldn't come up with even one state so homogenous in its religious beliefs that a state could survive linking its state government to a church.

Agreed. At least not overtly/obviously. But it seems to me that that's exactly what Santorum is advocating. Ie., the enactment of laws and establishment of government agencies based primarily on Christian doctrine.

 

[Galteeth]

Hmmmmm. :) I'm not sure how to parse that sentence I bold-faced. But my point is that Republicans tend to see the schools as a top-down bureaucratic structure which they have no input on. And these bureaucratic "experts" are deciding what your children will learn, whether you agree with them or not.

Meanwhile, Democrats feel exactly the same way. The only difference is that Democrats actually trust the top-down bureaucratic structure to make the right choices of how to educate their children. The Democrat thinks "okay, those people are experts. They've devoted their whole life to studying this. I should trust them on what they're experts in, and I'll worry about what I'm expert in."

The Republican thinks "What do I care what some money-grubbing Washington bureaucrat thinks about how to raise my kids?"

I don't think this is a fair summation of the argument. While what you have said is part of the debate, another important aspect is the degree to which local control versus state or federal control produces the best outcomes. For example, with federally mandated tests determining funding, teachers "teach to the test" and in some cases (like at my old high school) teachers allow cheating to boost scores. A lot of the debate does have to do with the bureaucratic nature of these things, and the question as to whether one size fits all policies actually work.

 

[CAC1001]

One of the basic tenets of the American form of government is that public policies are not supposed to based on religious dogma, but, historically that hasn't been the case? Isn't that the same as saying the American form of government has historically been based on religious dogma, but you wish it wasn't?

In any event, the first sentence isn't really correct. Most states in the United States had a state religion. The problem is that they didn't all have the same state religion and a few state constitutions even mandated separation of church and state. When it came to creating a federal government for all 13 states, there was no possibility of having a national religion that all 13 could agree on, hence a separation of church and state for the federal government - which isn't the same as saying the American form government was based on separation of church and state, since all 13 states were part of America whether you mean the country or the continent.

None the less, the problems the federal government had when it came to religion is even more relevant today. You couldn't come up with even one state so homogenous in its religious beliefs that a state could survive linking its state government to a church.

So the separation of church and state wasn't over keeping religion out of government, but because there was no way to create a national religion under the federal government?

 

[CAC1001]

Why do you think anti-intellectualism plays to the base of the republican party?

If by "anti-intellectualism" you mean suspicion of intellectuals, probably because intellectuals have a rather poor history regarding believing in things like Marxism, planned societies, that the U.S. is the source of all the world's major problems, etc...if you mean just a disdain for logic and reason on issues, well both bases of the parties are anti-intellectual in that sense, it's just that the anti-intellectualism kicks in on different issues.

I've often wondered if conservatives have a high need for closure. The world is very complicated, and it has a great deal of uncertainty. But the conservative message offers a very simplistic view of the world. So the message that it's all Satan's fault may provide closure to people afraid of the continuously changing world.

Partisans of both sides have overly-simplistic views of the world.

 

[daveb]

I don't think the general public is so one dimensional in their thinking that only social issues or religious beliefs will determine the fate of the candidate - unless the other issues (economy, foreign affairs, pending legislation, recently enacted legislation, court appointments, budget/failure to budget, taxes, deicits) are not equally considered.

I know numerous people who will/will not vote for a candidate solely on the basis of his or her stance on the abortion issue (I know this because the've said this is the only reason for their support/opposition of that candidate).

 

[daveb]

If we can advance this - I think Santorum was his own worst enemy (with his base including the TEA Party) when he called politics a team sport in the AZ debate.

You may be right about that (considering the number of "boos" I heard in the background), but I have to give him kudos for speaking the turth in that regard (because, sometimes, compromise is necessary, which was his point).

 

[mheslep]

...
One of the basic tenets of the American form of government is that public policies are not supposed to be based on any sort of appeal to any theistic religious dogma or mythology. ...

The term 'theistic' is your interpretation, and not used in the 1st amendment.

 

[ThomasT]

The term 'theistic' is your interpretation, and not used in the 1st amendment.

Yes, I think you're correct about that. But I do think that the intention was to establish a secular government.

Wrt Santorum, I think he would like to see, and would do whatever he could to establish, a Christian theocracy.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, I think you're correct about that. But I do think that the intention was to establish a secular government.

Wrt Santorum, I think he would like to see, and would do whatever he could to establish, a Christian theocracy.

Has he ever suggested anything of this type on the floor of the US Senate or introduced any such effort into a Bill?

 

[ThomasT]

Has he ever suggested anything of this type on the floor of the US Senate or introduced any such effort into a Bill?

I don't know. I'm just assuming that it's a future possibility (probability?) from his current rhetoric, and the apparent fact that he's a fanatical Christian.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong here. I have a couple, very close, fanatical Christian friends who I love and trust. But I wouldn't want them to be the chief executive.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't know. I'm just assuming that it's a future possibility (probability?) from his current rhetoric, and the apparent fact that he's a fanatical Christian.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong here. I have a couple, very close, fanatical Christian friends who I love and trust. But I wouldn't want them to be the chief executive.

I had no idea the President has that type of power? Moving forward, we'd better consider the religious comments made by every candidate as well as members of their Administrations - shouldn't we? Is there anything else we should be concerned about specifically with Santorum - other than his religious beliefs?

 

[ThomasT]

I had no idea the President has that type of power?

Well, aren't we being sarcastic now. But of course you're correct. The president actually doesn't have that sort of direct power. But he does have a lot of influence. And for that reason I see a Santorum presidency as a negative thing.

Moving forward, we'd better consider the religious comments made by every candidate as well as members of their Administrations - shouldn't we? Is there anything else we should be concerned about specifically with Santorum - other than his religious beliefs?

As far as I'm concerned Santorum's extreme religiosity is reason enough not to vote for him.

 

[WhoWee]

Well, aren't we being sarcastic now. But of course you're correct. The president actually doesn't have that sort of direct power. But he does have a lot of influence. And for that reason I see a Santorum presidency as a negative thing.

As far as I'm concerned Santorum's extreme religiosity is reason enough not to vote for him.

Thus far, it sounds as the only reason anyone has to not vote for him are his stated religious beliefs? I think it's best to let him wear those beliefs on his sleeve - if he starts to head down that road - there's a quick pull handle to get him back on track (for opponents) isn't there? IMO - it would be much worse to find that he harbored strong religious/philosophical beliefs that we were unaware of - wouldn't it?

 

[ThomasT]

Thus far, it sounds as the only reason anyone has to not vote for him are his stated religious beliefs?

I don't know about anyone, but that's my main reason to not vote for him.

I think it's best to let him wear those beliefs on his sleeve ...

Do we have a choice? I mean, isn't that part of his campaign strategy?

... - if he starts to head down that road - there's a quick pull handle to get him back on track (for opponents) isn't there?

He's already "down that road" as far as I can tell. And the solution is to not vote for him.

IMO - it would be much worse to find that he harbored strong religious/philosophical beliefs that we were unaware of - wouldn't it?

Like maybe he's in league with Satan? Yeah, that would be worse.

 

[WhoWee]

My point is that vetting is good - would you rather know his beliefs now or later? Rather than your Satan scenario - if Santorum ever tried to promote a religious agenda from the Oval Office - it would be very easy for opponents to counter.

 

[ThomasT]

My point is that vetting is good - would you rather know his beliefs now or later? Rather than your Satan scenario - if Santorum ever tried to promote a religious agenda from the Oval Office - it would be very easy for opponents to counter.

What's the point? That he's honest about being a fanatical Christian? Ok. That means I don't vote for him. But of course about half the country disagrees with me.

 

[daveb]

Again, does anyone have any reason other than religious beliefs not to vote for Santorum?

Most of the economic policies he would promote and/or support.
Most of the social policies he would promote and/or support.
The potential judges for SCOTUS (and other courts) he would appoint (because despite all appearances, all of the judges are influenced by their political philosophies - I happen to prefer progressive policies rather than consevrative ones.)

How's that for reasons not to vote for hi.

One other - I'm registered Green Party, so can't vote in the primary anyway.