Views: 463

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

He is the perfect spokesperson for the USA, aka: United States of AMNESIA:

"Anti-rationalism and anti-intellectualism flourish in a mix that includes an addiction to infotainment, every form of superstition and credulity, and an education system that does a poor job of teaching not only basic skills but the logic underlying those skills" (Susan Jacoby, "The Age of American Unreason")

Santorum can score political points for spouting off  tea party nonsense, Christian fundamentalist bologna and then excusing himself if he's misunderstood because he's not one of the 'elites' thank-you-very-much.....like basic intelligence and decent communication skills are signs of elitism! 

And blaming the 'liberal media' is like a knee-jerk reaction for politicians like him...he's persecuted by the left, remember?  That could be a drinking game...every time a GOPer blames the liberal media, political pundits, etc, for somehow making matters worse, take a sip! 

Many Republicans want A.B.O. and are willing to overlook the shortcomings of Newtie (the Swinger), Rumney (the dog abuser), Paul (the racist libertarian), and that most horrid of choices, Santotum (as you depict him, and well, thanks).  These people are supported by the electorate because for all their embarrassing prior sins, the candidates have rehabilitated themselves, and if they are not perfect they're preferable to the Muslim in the White House.

@James:  I think that little news story about Mitt's way of transporting his family pet couldn't have been shown at a better time....the same week as the Westminster Dog Show, ha.  Mitt just cannot catch a break. Now even the doglovers are against him! (Personally, I think the Irish Setter is a much better example of a dog than a Pekingese, but I'm biased toward the larger breeds.) 

Did you see that photo David Axelrod posted with President Obama and his dog?  Here it is: http://www.mediaite.com/online/david-axelrod-tweets-photo-of-presid...  

Thank you, Steve, for the following phrase:  "the ramblings of bronze age goat herders"...it made me laugh out loud. 

Santorum and social conservatives like him really want the American public to think that President Obama is threatening their religious faith somehow.  Fear is a strong motivator and wild-eyed Rick can whip up the masses by creating a false bogeyman.

(Luckily, if YOU can locate all that interesting information about Rick Santorum, I'm sure President Obama's team of trusty campaign advisers can find it too!  It doesn't look like they have to look very hard...ha) 

I seriously think that if this drooler actually gets elected it won't be long before women lose even the right to vote.  When any microscopic speck with 46 chromosomes is considered a "person"  and has more rights than the woman carrying it, it isn't much of a stretch to say that woman isn't a person after all.  No matter how stupid, no matter how rabidly religious, these swinging dicks know they are pissing off half the voting population with their views.  How to solve this problem?  Take the right to vote away from the pissed-off non-persons.  

Won't be long until the US is just like its old pal Saudi Arabia, where women can't drive, go out of the house alone, or show half an inch of her sinful skin.  Or vote.

Exactly.  Sheikh Santorum.

Exactly...Santorum is likely to tag feminism with 'radical' and get all sorts of support by stirring up that segment of conservative Christians who view women as subservient to men in domestic roles, professional roles, and, of course, political roles.   All positions of economic power.  All decision-making roles...well, unless it's about 'what's for dinner', Santorum will give us THAT choice.  We certainly can't be trusted with reproductive freedom!  The fact that there are women who support Santorum as president is scary to me...and to think I was spending so much time being mystified by the support NEWT was getting a few weeks ago.

"...that there are women who support Santorum as president is scary...."

Mojo, it both scares and saddens me.

I first saw the term "learned helplessness" in the late 1970s, and heard of young feminists (in their 30s) expressing anger that their mothers had been helpless. Some of them spoke with their mothers and later reported that their mothers had said everything in their early lives had reinforced that helplessness.

The women on my mom's side of the family somehow escaped that learning; I was about ten when an aunt, while talking with other women, said "If he hits me one time, there won't be a second time."

Many women had not escaped. When I was in my mid-20s (after I'd quit Catholicism) I saw that helplessness in many women my age. Seeing it in one woman I was interested in saddened me. Seeing it in so many women angered me.

That helplessness afflicts some Catholic men I know. Santorum seems helpless to express any view that differs from those of Catholicism.

I turned away from religion (Lutheran) in my early 20's for the very reasons you're providing above.  I have always been a Democrat because the political party recognizes many of the issues that I have been concerned about my entire adult life (I'm 49 now): violence against women, reproductive freedom, free speech, secular public education, social justice.  And separation of Church and State...which is never brought up as an issue with the Republican Party, is it?  The right wing of the party doesn't seem to think it's a problem and would probably see it as downright acceptable! 

I know what you mean about learned helplessness...but apathy is just as strong out there...I mostly experience cynicism from the community I live in.  The broad brush stroke of: They're all a bunch of crooks.

Republicans never bring up separation of church and state until it appears to be to their advantage, as, e.g. their claim that secularism is a religion and that Obama violated the establishment clause when he put "his religion [of secularism] over that of Christians."  You just can't win with these throwbacks.

They probably get their claim that secularism is a religion from a footnote in a US Supreme Court case identified in law books as Torcaso v. Watkins.

Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.

Of  course, they see stretching the truth, and even lying, for their religion as moral.

BTW, there are now many decisions of courts on the web. I googled "scotus torcaso" and found that one. I knew the name of the case because I happened to see a reference to it a few days ago. Since I know few cases by the parties' names, I'm going to try googling "scotus free speech" or "scotus religion" and see what the web has.


The Supreme Court is not immune from utterly stupid observations (being an attorney, I am allowed to argue that point).  I am sure all on this site are aware of the Dred Scott decision.  Just about as bad was Bush v. Gore.  Note that all of the beliefs with the exception of "Ethical Culture" and "Secular Humanism" are capitalized.  The justice may have been under the mistaken impression that these two groups actually were united under a common name and were tight-knit like the mainstream religious sects.  This is besides the point, since some Catholics still go to cathedrals using the Latin Mass, and the Episcopalians are ordaining female pastors, while other sects attach the word "United" to their name to denote a more liberal belief system, sometimes even embracing gays and lesbians. 

I must look up the Torcaso opinion to find out who said such a silly thing.  There is a tenet of law known as ejusdem generis.  If your contract says, "I bequeath to my child, Tom, my pear trees, peach trees, and apricot trees, and so forth" Tom cannot later claim that he does not have to share the lemon trees with David, his brother.  Why?  Because a lemon tree, not being mentioned in the list, and having nothing in common with fruit trees (they are not a citrus plant, after all) are not by will the exclusive property of Tom.  The religious groups set out in the opinion are all capitalized.  There is an ejusdem generis characteristic in Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, and Mormon as well: all require belief in God.  I don't think many secularists believe in God.  Thus, the religious right tells two lies: that Obama is a secularist, and that pushing secularism violates the First Amendment.  I would argue it is almost a sacred duty we have to halt the seeming slow march toward Christer theocracy, which is the Ultimate Violation of the 1st Amendment.

RSS

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service