|
On February 22 2012 16:01 Falling wrote:
And because Santorum has positioned himself as the defender of social conservatism, he needs to de-legitimize Obama's faith claims. (Whatever Obama may actually believe- he's pretty quiet about it, but that might just be his style.)
It is my view that Obama is much too intelligent to believe in a magical sky fairy. He simply states that he believes for the sake of being able to be elected into public office. There is the quote (can't remember the exact words off by heart): "Religion is great for the common people, false for the intellectuals, and useful for the rulers." I have no doubt that if he read books like The God Delusion he would find it to be very rational and agreeable, unlike fundamentalist Christians who tend to disregard it and vehemently decry it as being wrong without even reading it.
|
On February 22 2012 16:01 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 15:21 Jumbled wrote:On February 22 2012 08:05 DoubleReed wrote:
Wtf is "Theological secularism"?! WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?! It means "Loonies like us have given religion a bad name, therefore we should accuse opponents of being religious even when they aren't." Actually I think it's the opposite. It's probably more the cultural Christian "I-go-to-church-once-a-year" and fill out "Christian" on the census. And while that accounts for a lot of people in the West, I would say it's a neat rhetorical trick to legitimize Obama's faith claim. It allows a Catholic Santorum to accuse a Protestant Obama before Evangelical Protestants of not being sufficiently Christian. Which of course allows Santorum war on religion rhetoric- which would make no sense if Obama is an actual Christian. Furthermore, if you strip out politics, the Evangelicals theoretically should have more in common with Obama than Santorum theologically. And because Santorum has positioned himself as the defender of social conservatism, he needs to de-legitimize Obama's faith claims. ( Whatever Obama may actually believe- he's pretty quiet about it, but that might just be his style.)
For your typical American(policitian) that is, absolutely. In Europe for example we do also have religious politicians, also in the mainstream with(for the most part) the the Conservative parties all over Europe, but ppl like Santorum would be the fringe minority here.
Even in Austria which is presumably one of the most catholic countries in Europe, well still you must add, considering the huge scandals every now and then about child molesting in church institutions like schools etc. and the disastrous performance of the church of coming "clean" in a worldly manner, and not giving themselves absolution...but that´s nothing new in the US as well.
Still, from a strict theological point of view Santorum has got a point. People do pick the parts of religion that fit them and others are dismissed - and as a strict Catholic following the teachings (of the church - not necessarily Jesus Christ) you are by definition against abortion. Not saying that´s a good or a bad thing, but that´s how things are.
|
On February 22 2012 10:57 screamingpalm wrote:
A Hillary v Palin 2016 POTUS election would make for some great entertainment lol.
If Obama gets a second term, it's rumoured that Hillary Clinton won't be the Secretary of States anymore. After Obama leaves office, then, I think it will be difficult for Hillary to get support from Obama.
|
On February 22 2012 11:02 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 10:57 screamingpalm wrote:
A Hillary v Palin 2016 POTUS election would make for some great entertainment lol. That's not a bad idea. If there is one well known person in the Rep party who could reasonably claim the crazies and the more mainstream sector it would be Palin. I mean she is still bat-shit crazy compared to most people but the fact she gained the vice nomination with McCain would support her getting the main establishment nod of approval. I guess that is why she dropped out so early and has been touring the world. Trying to get a better image. Would be an interesting election.
Where have you been since September 2008? Palin's favorable ratings were high when people had little to no idea who she was. Since then? The general public doesn't like her, the Republican establishment doesn't like her, and the people who worked on the McCain campaign definitely don't like her.
|
On February 22 2012 16:19 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 10:57 screamingpalm wrote:
A Hillary v Palin 2016 POTUS election would make for some great entertainment lol. If Obama gets a second term, it's rumoured that Hillary Clinton won't be the Secretary of States anymore. After Obama leaves office, then, I think it will be difficult for Hillary to get support from Obama.
It's actually very common for Cabinet members to leave their post after 1 term. Hilary leaving would be nothing special.
|
On February 22 2012 14:09 Sogo Otika wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 02:37 Chaosvuistje wrote:Satan? Really? Of aaaall the stupid things he could say he brings up Satan? To anybody interrested in some laughs, there's a site posted on reddit where users can post their own ideas. Akin to the "In Soviet Russia" jokes, but instead "When Rick is President" jokes. http://whenrickispresident.com/ It might not be all that political, but really. By now I'm watching the news to laugh at the GOP candidates, then afterwards look at the Daily show to laugh some more. That's too much laughs in president runnings. Let me ask you a genuine question. Is it any more or less retarded to bring up 'Satan' as it is to bring up 'God' or 'Jesus' in a speech?
Depends on what you use it for. If you have a speech about murdering people and bring up 'God did not want us to kill other people' then it's more or less forgiven in my view. But to bring up Satan is the ultimate fearmongering. Using the Lord of Lies in a speech is like bringing up that Stalin and Hitler were secretly gay married to say you don't like marriage equality. The sole purpose is to make people fear it by putting an almost cartoony evil in its place.
|
Carter was the last religious US president imo. All those after them were atheists. It is obvious that they have to lie about their faith. Then when you look at their personal life and the development of their 'faith', there is a clear picture that only Carter was actually religious.
I don't even know if the people I vote for are religious or not.
|
On February 22 2012 16:15 Doublemint wrote:
Still, from a strict theological point of view Santorum has got a point. People do pick the parts of religion that fit them and others are dismissed - and as a strict Catholic following the teachings (of the church - not necessarily Jesus Christ) you are by definition against abortion. Not saying that´s a good or a bad thing, but that´s how things are.
Shouldn't a strict Catholic following the church's teachings also be against the death penalty and generally anti-war? The Pope has also said that western countries aren't doing enough to help the poor.
Santorum also picks and chooses which parts of the religion he wants to enforce.
|
On February 22 2012 16:07 Sogo Otika wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 16:01 Falling wrote:
And because Santorum has positioned himself as the defender of social conservatism, he needs to de-legitimize Obama's faith claims. (Whatever Obama may actually believe- he's pretty quiet about it, but that might just be his style.) It is my view that Obama is much too intelligent to believe in a magical sky fairy. He simply states that he believes for the sake of being able to be elected into public office. There is the quote (can't remember the exact words off by heart): "Religion is great for the common people, false for the intellectuals, and useful for the rulers." I have no doubt that if he read books like The God Delusion he would find it to be very rational and agreeable, unlike fundamentalist Christians who tend to disregard it and vehemently decry it as being wrong without even reading it.
That's a pretty arrogant and tribal view you've got there. There are plenty of very intelligent Christians. It's not like intelligence bars you from cognitive bias or anything.
Personally I haven't been convinced that Obama is an atheist. He could just as well be a moderate Christian from what I've seen. Not that I really care. As long as he's a secularist (which apparently is a bad thing to be now?) then I couldn't care less.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 22 2012 17:01 Miyoshino wrote:
Carter was the last religious US president imo. All those after them were atheists. It is obvious that they have to lie about their faith. Then when you look at their personal life and the development of their 'faith', there is a clear picture that only Carter was actually religious.
I don't even know if the people I vote for are religious or not.
Um... George Bush (Jr.) regularly consulted religious leaders on ethical questions while he was in office (specifically those of his religion).
|
United States43185 Posts
On February 22 2012 23:32 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 17:01 Miyoshino wrote:
Carter was the last religious US president imo. All those after them were atheists. It is obvious that they have to lie about their faith. Then when you look at their personal life and the development of their 'faith', there is a clear picture that only Carter was actually religious.
I don't even know if the people I vote for are religious or not. Um... George Bush (Jr.) regularly consulted religious leaders on ethical questions while he was in office (specifically those of his religion).
Bush Jr and Blair had a really close religious thing going on and Blair had no reason to lie about faith, we like atheists in government over here, Blair actually had to downplay his religion.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On February 22 2012 23:32 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 17:01 Miyoshino wrote:
Carter was the last religious US president imo. All those after them were atheists. It is obvious that they have to lie about their faith. Then when you look at their personal life and the development of their 'faith', there is a clear picture that only Carter was actually religious.
I don't even know if the people I vote for are religious or not. Um... George Bush (Jr.) regularly consulted religious leaders on ethical questions while he was in office (specifically those of his religion).
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I suspect your politicians, even the dumb ones, don't actually consult religious leaders because of ethics.
They just do it to indicate to the religious majority, to assure them that their particular partisan views are being pandered to.
I mean, you should/shouldn't do something because the bible/church/deity says so, is not a good basis for an ethical dialogue, I mean there's no real possibility of a discussion beyond that. You either do what they want or you don't.
You would really only consult them to let them and their followers know that you are doing what they want.
I still guess I still find the idea of the religious organisations holding so much political power in a western country kinda weird.
|
Uh well many Americans consider religion to be a personal private matter. Consulting religious leaders wouldn't necessarily make a lot of sense (from a personal or political perspective). Saying that they are atheists which was a very small minority ten years ago just seems unrealistic.
|
On February 22 2012 23:44 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 23:32 Whitewing wrote:On February 22 2012 17:01 Miyoshino wrote:
Carter was the last religious US president imo. All those after them were atheists. It is obvious that they have to lie about their faith. Then when you look at their personal life and the development of their 'faith', there is a clear picture that only Carter was actually religious.
I don't even know if the people I vote for are religious or not. Um... George Bush (Jr.) regularly consulted religious leaders on ethical questions while he was in office (specifically those of his religion). Maybe I'm just cynical, but I suspect your politicians, even the dumb ones, don't actually consult religious leaders because of ethics.
I´d say you are a realist. Mainly a PR-Stunt is what it is. How much real influence those "christian" councellors have, you can perfectly see in the War on Terror policies, especially Guantanamo(to stay in the Context of Bush Jr. , but I guess it can be extended to any President in recent history.)
|
I think Obama is either a very liberal Christian, or not a Christian at all (just go to church for the shows). I recall one time he made a discussion which was basically along the lines of whether or not Christians should shovel Christian values into non-Christians' throats, and his opinion was that Christians should be careful to NOT do this.
Then again, there are tons of Christians like that. So I don't think it's a big issue.
|
On February 22 2012 23:22 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 16:15 Doublemint wrote:
Still, from a strict theological point of view Santorum has got a point. People do pick the parts of religion that fit them and others are dismissed - and as a strict Catholic following the teachings (of the church - not necessarily Jesus Christ) you are by definition against abortion. Not saying that´s a good or a bad thing, but that´s how things are.
Shouldn't a strict Catholic following the church's teachings also be against the death penalty and generally anti-war? The Pope has also said that western countries aren't doing enough to help the poor. Santorum also picks and chooses which parts of the religion he wants to enforce.
Sorry I did not read your post earlier  , excellent point. It just shows how men, especially politicians like santorum, spin and twist the teachings to fit it their agenda, be it political or religious.
|
On February 22 2012 23:55 DoubleReed wrote:
Uh well many Americans consider religion to be a personal private matter. Consulting religious leaders wouldn't necessarily make a lot of sense (from a personal or political perspective). Saying that they are atheists which was a very small minority ten years ago just seems unrealistic.
Small groups tend to be far more homogenic in their voting choices.
The majority white vote tends to be a very clean 50/50-ish split.
Minorities like hardcore religious people tend to be far more in favour of one particular candidate or just stay home en masse.
|
I cannot believe in this day and age, with all of the problems the US is facing, with the ever mounting debt and the global economic uncertainty, that we are wasting our time talking about birth control and the devil. How far down the road to ruin does a nation have to go before they start focusing, caring and voting about the issues that actually matter. The so-called "social" issues depress me so much.
|
On February 22 2012 23:32 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 17:01 Miyoshino wrote:
Carter was the last religious US president imo. All those after them were atheists. It is obvious that they have to lie about their faith. Then when you look at their personal life and the development of their 'faith', there is a clear picture that only Carter was actually religious.
I don't even know if the people I vote for are religious or not. Um... George Bush (Jr.) regularly consulted religious leaders on ethical questions while he was in office (specifically those of his religion).
Like Ted Haggard, insurance salesman, and recovering homosexual.
|
On February 23 2012 00:42 liberal wrote:
I cannot believe in this day and age, with all of the problems the US is facing, with the ever mounting debt and the global economic uncertainty, that we are wasting our time talking about birth control and the devil. How far down the road to ruin does a nation have to go before they start focusing, caring and voting about the issues that actually matter. The so-called "social" issues depress me so much.
Eh, I would argue that social issues actually affect the economy pretty significantly. Plenty of people don't really know anything about economics and don't want to pretend to. And frankly a lot of the economy is actually out if the governments purview.
Foreign policy honestly is probably more important than economy in terms of really affecting people's lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
