1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Rick Santorum (US Republican presidential candidate) trying to bring Jesus into the government

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by Mewmew, Jan 17, 2012.

  1. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    So, yeah, Jefferson was still about Jesus.

    A Catholic is about Jesus too. (It was a very good thing for JFK.)
     
  2. Bodkin van Horn

    Bodkin van Horn One of the Four Horsewomyn of the Fempocalypse

    What gets me even more is the crazy shit some of these evangelicals believe about the end of the world (it also sheds light on their general propensity to look out for Israel's interests over the interests of their own country). There's seriously something about a specially colored cow being born and certain people occupying certain temples. It's the type of crazy shit you'd read in a Dan Brown book. Wait. Fuck.

    The idea that a ruling majority of our government could soon be composed of people who are compelled by their religion to actively work to bring about the set biblically prophesized circumstances required for Armageddon is distressing.

    Catholics believe some zany things too. Someone should ask Rick Santorum how he could possibly be a good leader to a nation when he is required to believe that most of its inhabitants deserve to burn in hell for eternity.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2012
  3. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    US Presidents for $500, Alex...It amazes me what I remember from grade school, but I went to a Catholic (read religious) grade school at a time when people discussed religion from a historical point of view.

    Be clear, respecting the philosophy of Jesus, is not the same as being a Christian.

    It is not my fault that some have hijacked Jefferson's message, and others let it go unchallenged. The values contained in the Constitution no doubt reflect Judeo-Christian values - but Jefferson would never concede the US was a Christian nation and he stated that.

    I give, white flag. Wrap this up for us, what is your concluding statement. I promise no further comment - I will just read.
     
  4. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Secular politicians are the only type fit for leading in a liberal democracy. Religion is a private matter.

    My point is that presidential politics in the U.S.—today—hinges greatly on faith generally and Christianity specifically. Why you chose to cherry-pick presidents who were in office 203 and 147 years ago, respectively, is beyond me. This despite the fact that your rationale didn't even make any sense. I'm under the impression that the average American voter cannot remember anything substantial past 10 years.

    Perhaps we should focus on today. The danger being that we may end up talking about democracy in ancient Greece before long.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2012
  5. Hektore

    Hektore Slightly Tilted

    I don't want to call this inspiring, it's more less depressing than I thought, but still a perk up from this otherwise depressing discussion.

    More See “Too Much” Religious Talk by Politicians - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

    Maybe there is hope yet that these Rick Santorum types won't stand a chance in the general elections
     
  6. Alistair Eurotrash

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Unfortunately, that still says that the majority consider a candidate's religion to be a factor and worthy of discussion. I find that odd.

    Over here, if a candidate starts talking about his/her religion, it's a risky strategy and liable to damage their chance of election. I smell a crook (or a lunatic) when they revert to that and maybe other voters do too. Maybe it's just a cultural difference.
     
  7. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    I can agree with this. No US Presidential candidate running for office in modern times (or maybe ever) has sought to promote his religiousness to the extent that Santorum does.

    Maybe that 3rd party we've all been hoping for will be a strong, theocratic one. Be careful what we wish for, eh?

    Then again, the need for balance being what it is, might an Atheist Party spring up in defiance?
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2012
  8. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Ace, I agree that Santorum will not be be elected. I would still have hoped that Republicans would have denounced the "Jesus is the only God in America" speech of the good reverend who introduced him at a recent campaign event.

    But the issues is much larger than the presidential election.

    If you still believe that the evangelical control of the Republican Party that has led to a record number of state laws (4x any previsous year) that restrict women's reproductive rights is a false boogey man, or the numerous bills banning Sharia law as a threat to the US (my favorite in is FL where there is a bill to allow organized student-led prayer in public school as an expression of religious freedom and another bill banning Sharia law) is another boogey man ...then, I agree , it is getting tiresome.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2012
  9. Alistair Eurotrash

    Location:
    Reading, UK
  10. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    This is, of course, not limited to the Republican Party. It's simply that there are more problems among Republicans on this matter.

    But, for the record, I've always found it odd that the routine valediction at the end of presidential speeches/addresses, regardless of party, is "God bless America." I'm sure many view this as symbolic. Much like how many Canadians see the line "God keep our land glorious and free" in our national anthem as traditional, historical, or symbolic. It's not that many of us are all that concerned whether or not a god does anything to keep us glorious and free.

    But how many Americans authentically acknowledge that God should indeed bless America?

    I suppose the greatest concern in all of this isn't Santorum specifically, but instead any politician who would introduce legislation based on their faith or dogma rather than reason. It's a concern because it's happening. It's as though there is a growing movement that could be described as the "desecularization" of America.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. pan6467

    pan6467 a triangle in a circular world.

    It's history repeating itself only we have a faster, more intense media. When times get financially difficult, this nation becomes more and more religious.
     
  12. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Surprising, as the fastest growing group in the US are those who check "none" when asked about religious affiliation.

    It does not diminish the threat of those seeking theocratic dominance, however. The great artist who never puts brush to canvas still pales in comparison to the hack who does.
     
  13. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    the contemporary republican coalition is not what it once was, so neither is their language. they've been peddling a kind of transcendental reactionary nationalism since the 1970s. the shift into bed with the christian neo-fascist right happened during the clinton period, in part because of organizational options, in part out of reaction to clinton's consistent co-opting of the center. they've fashioned a kind of identity politics across a wholesale takeover of christian rhetoric and issues. now that they're saddled with the legacy of the clustefuck that was the bush2 period--which they've compounded by their policy of just-say-no since---they've slid even further to the right. my assumption is that the strategists who combine to effectively run the right don't give a shit about the american salafi really, but are more than willing to use them as bodies to get elected. once elected, as we saw with the bush people, there's nothing the salafi can do or say because we're free like that.

    my expectation is that romney will run with some salafi loon as vp. my other expectation is that no amount of conservative money is going to make romney electable.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    The Republican primaries show evangelicals aren't a voting bloc | Marcia Pally | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
     
  15. Shadowex3

    Shadowex3 Very Tilted

    Personally I think Santorum may have just removed himself from the race:



    I think the major problem with the right is that they've traded pretty much all substance for some kind of ideal of ideological purity that has been defined primarily by opposing anything anyone else does and trying to promote a theocratic america.
     
  16. the_jazz

    the_jazz Accused old lady puncher

    Shadowex3, I don't think that clip says what you think it says. It sounds like a guy fumbling over a couple of words in a manner that sounds coincidentally like something else. There doesn't seem to be any malice or intent there - at least the way that the clip is framed by the headline.
     
    • Like Like x 2