Rick Santorum: Full-Blown Creationist

THE last time we discussed creationism and presidential politics was here: Which 2012 Presidential Challengers Are Creationists? We didn’t include Rick Santorum in that article.

In fact, the only time we’ve ever mentioned Santorum was in this article: The Curmudgeon’s Amendment, in which we tangentially discussed his proposed amendment to the “No Child Left Behind” law — which the Senate rejected — but which would have required that the “controversy” about intelligent design should be taught along with evolution.

Santorum speaks proudly about that failed amendment in today’s news, so it may be worth reading what we said about it earlier. Or just read what the National Center for Science Education said: Santorum Amendment Stripped from Education Bill.

That’s enough background. In the Herald-Journal of Spartanburg, South Carolina we read Ex-senator: Youth are facing a ‘war of ideas’. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

[We’d like to give you some excerpts from the news story, but that paper is being acquired by Stephens Media, and they’re suing bloggers who excerpt their content without permission. So you’ll have to click over there to read it for yourself.]

This is the school where Santorum was speaking: Spartanburg Christian Academy. If he’s thinking of running for President, we need to pay attention to him. Let’s read about Santorum’s “ideological battle.” The article quotes him as saying:

“The war is in academia, in colleges and universities and now — increasingly — in primary and secondary schools. And the war is against people who have an ideology — a secular ideology, a relativistic, materialistic ideology — which denies the existence of truth, which denies the existence of a creator and a foundation upon which to build and to seek those truths.”

Where else have we seen that kind of rant against “materialistic ideology”? Oh yes, it’s here: The Wedge Document. What a coincidence! We continue:

[Deleted.]

He denies trying to make intelligent design part of the public school curriculum? Well, there goes any pretense of integrity. That’s not surprising; we’ve never yet encountered a creationist in politics who was honest about the subject. Here’s more:

[Deleted something about his position on climate change.]

Lordy, lordy. Yet another creationist jumps on the ClimateGate bandwagon. Can you take any more of this? You have to. It’s better to pay attention now, rather than risk puting up with him as President. Moving along:

There are real consequences to climate change, there’s real consequences to evolution, that have to do with not just truth, but your own faith: Whether there is a God. Whether this God is sovereign. Whether this God was a creator. As opposed to… That there is no God. That we are all just a matter of random chance to have arrived at where we are. There’s no truth. There’s no moral law. There’s no lawgiver,” Santorum said.

“All of these things, whether it’s climate science, or whether it’s evolution science, have that huge issue hanging over us.”

[Deleted an excerpt in which he puts theocracy above fiscal responsibility.]

If that’s what the GOP thinks we need, then it’s all over.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

15 responses to “Rick Santorum: Full-Blown Creationist

  1. If he does by some chance become the GOP’s nominee, would the fiscal conservatives please break off and make your own party. It would be nice to maybe have someone SANE to vote for just for a change…

  2. Albanaeon says: “… would the fiscal conservatives please break off and make your own party.”

    A third party would be a replay of the effect Ross Perot’s campaign had — it clinched Clinton’s victory. The best bet is to re-take the existing party, but there seems little chance of that at the moment. It all depends on the primary contests.

  3. How does one even talk to someone whose idea of “truth” is based entirely on religious views and thinks that “scientific facts” are just a different belief system that need to be fought?

  4. comradebillyboy

    Little Ricky ‘man on dog’ Santorum is a fine example of intense anti intellectualism and abandonment of scientific thought by the conservative movement in general and the Republican party in particular. Its scary how well the anti science message seems to succeed.

  5. Curdge, you have to realize that the Social Connies won’t let go of anything until its a cold, dead, smoking crater. Not to mention that its still the “base” of the Republicans right now so you can expect to see even intelligent fiscals genuflecting to them just for votes. As long as that happens, Socials will be able to call the shots and you won’t be able to wrest the party back.

  6. I’d personally like to see the Blue Dogs split and meet up in the middle with the Republicans who put their fiscal conservatism first.

    My biggest fear is that Palin will splinter the Republicans on social issues and leave the Dems unchallenged. Even if she just takes the 20% or so of her most adoring fans, it would be enough.

    I did notice this recent news about the popularity of the Tea Party. If they’d stay focused on the economics and reach out to the Blue Dogs (which might require toning Beck’s rhetoric down a bit?) they might have something.

  7. a secular ideology, a relativistic, materialistic ideology…

    Bah, our ideology isn’t relativistic – we aren’t moving anywhere near the speed of light. What, he just had to get a hit on Einstein in there too?

  8. eric, if you have the inclination, you can check out Conservapedia and see that they do have problems with the Theory of Relativity. For some muddled reason, they’ve equated it with Moral Relativity and are trying to say its as debunked as “Darwinism.” Since General Relativity is nearly as supported as the Theory of Evolution, its actually pretty funny.

  9. For some muddled reason, they’ve equated it with Moral Relativity

    Ack, Poe’s law strikes again! You just can’t satirize these guys.

  10. In a 2002 editorial ironically entitled “Illiberal Education in Ohio Schools,” the pseudosconservative Santorum demands an absurdly liberal science education, but also hints that he doesn’t necessarily agree with the DI’s “scientific theory.” In all these years he – a master politician – has been careful to steer clear of what he thinks might be a better explanation, and particularly whether that explanation includes common descent, old life, etc.

    I have listened to him on the radio lately, and he is learning how to sound “sciency” by selectively reading, and processing only what “feels good,” about global warming. But I think he is shrewd enough not to do that with evolution. He knows just enough to know that there’s no science to challenge evolution, but as an incorrigible authoritarian he must keep the truth from the “masses” that can’t handle it.

    So he is reduced to a poor man’s David Klinghoffer. For kicks I’ll recommend that he read Ken Miller’s “Only A Theory,” but by now I don’t expect him to read it. If he does, it would only be to learn how to better misrepresent evolution. Very Sad.

  11. Frank J says of Santorum: “So he is reduced to a poor man’s David Klinghoffer.”

    Now there‘s an insult!

  12. eric, if you have the inclination, you can check out Conservapedia and see that they do have problems with the Theory of Relativity. For some muddled reason, they’ve equated it with Moral Relativity and are trying to say its as debunked as “Darwinism.” Since General Relativity is nearly as supported as the Theory of Evolution, its actually pretty funny.

    It’s mostly one guy bullying people with his engineerness, if you read the talk page.

    What’s interesting is that they want to strip the “liberal” “interpolations” from the Bible.

    Screwtape approves:

    About the general connection between Christianity and politics, our position is more delicate. Certainly we do not want men to allow their Christianity to flow over into their political life, for the establishment of anything like a really just society would be a major disaster. On the other hand we do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything – even to social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop. Fortunately, it is quite easy to coax humans round this little corner. Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that “only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilisations.” You see the little rift? “Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.” That’s the game.

  13. Curmudgeon: “Now there’s an insult!”

    That, plus all but calling him a “liberal” is meant not as an insult, but as John Wayne’s slap of Robert Stack in “The High and the Mighty.” Unfortunatly if he reads it I don’t expect Stack’s “Thanks for knocking sense in my head” but rather Kevin Bacon’s “Thank you sir, may I have another?” from “Animal House.”

  14. Gabe, I know Conservapedia is a rather select group of reality denying zaniness, but their antics are so hilarious sometimes you can’t help but watch. And also a good place to realize what exactly would happen if these people get control. Nothing that even appears to get of their straight and narrow path is safe.

  15. Egad! Little Green Footballs has a link to this thread.