« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

How Santorum Should Explain ‘Theology’ Comment and ‘Theocracy’ charges: Pay Attention Uneducated Media

By: ehud (Diary)  |  February 20th, 2012 at 11:44 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I happened to watch some MSNBC today while flipping through the channels. Al Sharpton was in a fury over Santorum’s theology remark, claiming he was saying the President wasn’t a Christian and then walking it back and bringing up the whole line about ‘We aren’t a theocracy’.

If Santorum is the nominee we a going to hear the ‘theocrat’ charge non-stop, and there is a very simple way to respond.

I struggled a long time trying to figure out how to reconcile my personal religious beliefs and values with the idea that we have to have a ‘neutral’ government. What I eventually realized is that IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HAVE VALUE-NEUTRAL POLICY. Every law is based on some determination of what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. People determine what is good or bad by referring to their value system. So POLITICS IS REALLY ABOUT WHOSE VALUES WILL BE IMPOSED ON EVERYONE ELSE, and which values have highest priority. What the left loves to do is impose their values on us, but accuse conservatives of being ‘theocrats’ whenever conservatives try have policy reflect our values.

The important relation between theology and values is this:

THEOLOGY —> WORLDVIEW  —>  VALUES

Most people have a set of beliefs about God, the nature of the universe, etc which helps them form a worldview, or a context for understanding everything in life. Many times our worldview is not consciously thought through, illogical, and inconsistent with our theology. Regardless, it is from this worldview that we get a system of values that we use to form opinions about what goes on in the world, especially politics.

In America, we have a battle between two worldviews: secular humanism and judeo-christianity/americanism. To a large extent, the democrats represent the values of  secular humanism and republicans represent the american value system (which draws heavily on judeo-christian beliefs).

Dennis Prager has a very interesting take on this when he talks about the American Trinity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn4IH3yng4k

It’s a loser for Santorum to talk about Obama’s theology (although you do have to wonder what Obama’s theology is given how it influences his worldview), but what Santorum was trying to say is that Obama has a different worldview than most Americans. Obama is clearly a secular humanist, and as such he places equality as one of the highest values. The american value system places a high priority on God, the moral order, and liberty. It is from this conflict of worldviews that we have the contraception/catholic church controversy.

 

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Michael_Corleone

    In fact, he should double down.

    The Administration is in a tizzy because Santorum hit Obama’s achilles heel. Quite simply, Obama is a man lacking morals who spent his entire life in the church of a racist, anti-American pastor. This line of attack was never explored in 2008, and should be explored now.

    I also find it interesting that the media is allowed to attack SANTORUM’S personal beliefs re contraception (even though there is no controverey regarding his public policy preference for accessible contraception, as evidenced by his voting preferences). But at the same time, we can’t talk about Obama’s personal beliefs. Please.

    This is precisely how Santorum can neutralize himself in the General Election. Everytime they talk about Santorum’s Catholicism, a Santorum surrogate talks about Obama’s “theology.”

    • Dave_A

      The absurd notion that McCain played ‘too nice’, ignores that Obama also beat Hillary – the Clintons being masters of ‘win-at-any-cost’ dirty politics…

      Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, and Rezko all got shown to the people, and the people ignored all of the above….

      If you want to beat Obama, you have to do so on the issues, because nothing sticks to him…

      And to do that, you have to be equally ‘squeaky clean’, because if anything sticks to you, you won’t get a word in edgewise ‘on the issues’…

      • Michael_Corleone

        A few stories were run in the MSM (without investigation) and McCain barely talked about it.

        There is a reason Obama is reacting so strongly to Santorum’s comments. He has a weakness.

        I am not saying Santorum overtly attack Obama’s personal beliefs, but he should certainly tie those beliefs to Obama’s public policy.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          He can win this battle for us

          http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2012/02/20/santorums-my-way-encores-best-obamas-original-happy-days-are-here-again/

          • ehud

            I think that the way to deal with this issue of theology is to:

            1. Explain that we cannot have value-neutral government. This would neuter SO many charges about the right always trying to ‘impose our religious values’.

            2. Make the election in part a referendum on 2 worldviews: secular humanism and traditional American values. This is slightly different than saying Obama wants to make us into a European socialist state. That it true, but makes it mostly an economic difference. Secular Humanism leads to that kind of socialist kind of government, but it also leads to thinking that abortion and population control are good things, nontraditional families are good, that religion in dangerouss, etc. 60-70% of the people do not want to have a government based on secular humanism if they were confronted with the issue and thought about it.

            This is one way to appeal to hispanics. If you can get them to understand that the democrats have values that are really the opposite of the values their religion teaches.

          • aesthete

            1) Define “value-neutral”.

            2) Explain why “traditional American values” have to be enforced by government — because that’s the part where you start losing people. If you don’t think they need to be enforced, then explain the difference between your view and that of a libertarian-conservative or small-government conservative, especially as it pertains to national politics.

            This whole argument is based on false choice fallacy.

          • ehud

            1, Try to thiink of a value-neutral law, i.e. one that isn’t based on some conception of what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. I haven’t been able to think of one. Even traffic laws are based someone’s idea of good or bad.

            So our government MUST by logic be based on someone’s value system.. Even if you were to have a very small government that regulates almost nothing, that government is based on a system that places a high value on decisions made by individuals, communities, local governments, etc. And some people want big government taking care of them and wouldn’t like that. So someone’s concept of good government is being forced on someone else.

            Now perhaps you should use different rhetoric as a politician, but is that not in essence what is happening?

            And when I talk about Traditional American Values, I am including liberty as one of those values (As does Prager in his video), particularly economic and religious liberty.

            Now do you disagree with any of that?

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            and he has maintained that consistent position that includes his contention that Judeo-Christian values include same.

        • Kyle-MI

          They want the issues to be theology because it will turn off swing voters from the GOP and it will distract from the economy and jobs. When you find an opponents weak spot you keep the focus there.

          • Dave_A

            FIrst off, the author above is right – all legislation – with the possible exception of behavior-agnostic tax legislation (if we could ever pass such a thing) – is legislation of morality, the only question is what morality is being legislated.

            As for Santorum, the ‘religeous zealot’ angle only works for the left, if Rick allows himself to be drawn down into battles over those sorts of issues…

            If he stays on message & calls the left out for trying to change the channel because they don’t like what they’re seeing, he’ll be fine…

          • ehud

            I would say tax legislation, to a very great degree, is an enforcement of some group’s values regarding economics. How you tax, whether it is a progressive tax,flat tax, income rather than sales, whether taxes are high or low, whether property is taxed, gas is taxed, etc.; those are all dependent on how the ruling class thinks about economics and whether they think taxing the rich is ‘good’, or low taxes are ‘good’.

            I still can’t think of any examples of legislation that aren’t based on some group’s values.

  • funwithknives

    “walk it back” due to percieved { MSM } “hidden meanings” you have already lost your talking point {Partially?}due to their obfuscation and The Real Intelligence Level of *Boobus Americanus*.
    How many public,educational institutions’ surveys illustrate the basic ignorance of so many in this country? Not everyone is nearly as educated as seemingly so many present here. From where our rights are derived, to Lockboxing S/S, to the 9/11 truth movement, “informed opinion’ is everywhere and most of it it is, Oh, So Wrong.
    So, where are Rick’s speech reviewers? Where is the ebb and flow of honest appraisal before he opens up and enunciates? He can butt-cover all day long after the fact, but if the review process is not used how much more self-inflicted damage does he do, in follow up?
    I am not advocating P C- ism but for cryin’ out loud, look in a mirror and look/ listen to yourself before you go off and make a ditch for your campaign
    I’ll work for minimum wage and try my damndest to criticize you all day long. You can feed me through holes in the cardboard box I’ll stay in. (Prime Rib and Potatoes, please)