Santorum, Obama, and Theological Politics
There’s always a danger of reading too much into a vague statement some politician makes, especially when the statement is presented without context, so I want to tread carefully when examining the following quote by our would-be savior Rick Santorum. Speaking about President Obama’s agenda at a Tea Party rally, Santorum said:
It’s not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your job. It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology.
To no one’s surprise, journalists and commentators jumped on the remarks, compelling Santorum to qualify his statements:
I’ve been pretty clear that the left in America has their own moral code in which they want to impose on this country. You can call it a theology. You can call it a moral code. You can call it a world view, but they have their own moral code that they want to impose on everybody else.
There’s a newsworthy significance to these assertions. With these words, Santorum suggests the way he understands politics: he interprets both the aim of politics and the political landscape theologically. You may see the political arena as a conflict of moral codes or worldviews or what-have-you, but Santorum sees it as a conflict of theologies.
Am I reading too much into this one statement? Consider also these words by the presidential candidate, which appear on his website:
I have been asked many times, from town-hall meetings in Iowa to diners in South Carolina, to articulate what I believe in — not just about a given issue, or even something as fundamental as the role of government, but about life and reality. Folks want to know what frames my understanding of how things are and how they ought to be, my “worldview,” in order to have insight into what will guide my decision making if the American electorate chooses me to represent them in the White House.
There are two texts in particular that have framed my worldview, my fundamental belief system, as it relates to my role as a public official. One is political and the other Biblical, and both foster an orienting belief that, more than any other, directs my decision making: the dignity of every human being.
Santorum himself makes it clear that his worldview is theo-political: he traces his worldview back to two foundational texts, The Declaration of Independence and the Book of Genesis. It makes sense, then, that Santorum would interpret the political worldviews of others within this same theo-political framework. He doesn’t object if others prefer to call something else what he calls a theology or a phony theology, but he has his term of choice. And that term has import and consequence. Whether Santorum is warning about secularism and relativism at home or warmongering with reference to “Islamic fascism” abroad, he’s interpreting the world theologically. His political thought is theological thought.
Therefore, our understanding Rick Santorum’s politics requires our understanding his theology. If Santorum’s campaign continues to do well, it may be worth considering what the grand themes and the nitty-gritty nuances of his theology could mean for his presidency and for the country.
Have you ever gotten into an argument with an atheist and been surprised at the amount of moral language artifacts that remain in their arguments?
I mean, you can practically get them to admit to moral nihilism in one breath and, in the next, they can talk about how such and such is “wrong” or even “evil” and how this other set of behaviors/beliefs is “right”?
(Of course, maybe I’m the only one who has done this…)
Damn…oops…i mean darn atheists talking in moral terms. I never thought i wasn’t to use moral terms or think in right or wrong. Is that just the heritage of our language? Why can’t an atheist say something in evil?
Oh, s/he absolutely can. The problem is reconciling that with the professed moral nihilism in the same argument.
Moral nihilism is a fairly interesting counter-argument against most religiously-based social conservativism. I’m sure you’ve seen it used as such.
I’m just always fascinated what the foundation of atheist morality tends toward. Consequentialism? Well, all you have to do is point out that the consequences are different (and, quite regularly, worse than advertised) to successfully counter that argument… at which point the argument usually switches to some form of either motive-based consequentialism (compare to theism!) or rule consequentialism (compare to theism!) and, at that point, the argument usually falls into some vague moral nihilism mixed with moral condemnation for disagreeing (compare to theism!).
(Now, of course, all atheists are not moral nihilists… I’m pretty sure that it’s not necessarily the case that all moral nihilists are atheists but all of the ones that *I* have met are also atheists.)
I’d bet at the deepest level most peoples morality is based on their level of personal paranoia, fear, need for companionship, feelings about authority, how they warmly/coldly, lovingly and affectionately they were raised as children. In short not things that have to do directly with religion or lack of it. I’m not sure a generic atheist morality is any better or worse then generic religious morality. The difference is whether it is based on what a typically long dead authority figure was supposed to have written a long time ago.
I’m not sure a generic atheist morality is any better or worse then generic religious morality.
How would you be able to tell?
But back to Santorum, I’d say that the more strident the moral language used, the more likely it is that there is a “world view” that the speaker feels ought to be held up by some form of legislation, be it government aid, subsidized health insurance, or zoning issues related to smoking establishments.
The questions then come of the form “what won’t we tolerate?”
Which is a *VERY* interesting question in practice.
Jay- “more strident the moral language used”
While out today i saw a couple with some signs at an intersection. They were fans of Paul. The signs suggested that “Freedom in popular” (which is hard to argue with as far as it goes) and that if Paul isn’t elected we are all destined for totalitarian dystopia.
Where these people moral agnostics, do you think?
“professed moral nihilism”
Can you give an example?
“I’m not sure a generic atheist morality is any better or worse then generic religious morality.”
“‘I’m not sure a generic atheist morality is any better or worse then generic religious morality.’”
I’m not sure I understand why this is nihilistic.
Well, let’s call it “moral agnosticism” that results in an inability to distinguish between “good” and “bad” (as opposed to someone who comes out and says that the very categories of “good” and “bad” don’t exist which would probably be closer to how you’d expect “moral nihilism” to show up).
“let’s call it ‘moral agnosticism'”
Sorry, I don’t read it that way either. Maybe you should come up with another example.
Perhaps I need more help with what “generic” means because I assume that it means something like this:
“The following things are good: X, Y, Z. The following things are bad: A, B, C.”
And if a generic theistic morality says the above and if a generic atheistic morality says vice-versa and we suddenly can’t say whether it’s any better or worse? (Should I give an example of a something or several somethings that would be “bad” here and “good” there or would that result in the moralities no longer being “generic” but “specific” and, of course, we can say not only *THAT* this one is better than that one but *WHY* and *HOW*?)
And if that’s not what is understood by “generic”, I’m afraid that I don’t know how “generic” is being used here. “Like Christianity but blander?”
I’m afraid I don’t know exactly what the other individual means by “generic” either. My cursory reading of that comment suggested to me that it was simply pushback against the frequently expressed notion that morality is necessarily derived from a favored deity, but cursory readings are sometimes inaccurate (not to mention that blog comments aren’t always rigorous), so perhaps we should drop it and you could give me a better example of atheistic moral nihilism.
I suppose a good example of “moral nihilism” would be “moral values are little more than intellectual constructs without grounding in reality”.
My cursory reading of that comment suggested to me that it was simply pushback against the frequently expressed notion that morality is necessarily derived from a favored deity
My notion was, and let me cut and paste myself because I’d like to point out an important distinction between what I said and what you imply that you think I said:
I’m just always fascinated what the foundation of atheist morality tends toward. Consequentialism? Well, all you have to do is point out that the consequences are different (and, quite regularly, worse than advertised) to successfully counter that argument… at which point the argument usually switches to some form of either motive-based consequentialism (compare to theism!) or rule consequentialism (compare to theism!) and, at that point, the argument usually falls into some vague moral nihilism mixed with moral condemnation for disagreeing (compare to theism!).
(Er, what I think you’re implying that you think I said.)
“moral values are little more than intellectual constructs without grounding in reality”.
Who says that? Intellectual constructs are real, are they not?
So “God” is real, then?
I, myself, happen to be an atheist and so I take the attitude that there is no God.
But if what you mean by “God” is “the thought in my head” then I guess I need to rethink my atheism.
Unless we want to hammer out what “real” means. I’m cool with Phillip K Dick’s definition. Would you prefer another?
I don’t know what an atheist’s morality “tends toward” since every individual is an individual and I see no compelling reason that it must necessarily “tend toward” consequentialism or anything else. What I will say is that, as far as I can tell, an atheist’s morality is derived from the same places as everybody else’s, there’s just no pretense that a deity is involved.
“So ‘God’ is real, then?”
Are you going to cease playing games and give me an example of atheistic moral nihilism?
Now if you’d like me to agree, for the sake of argument, that each individual’s morality is “derived from the same places as everybody else’s”, I’d be down with that.
I’d also be down with discussing whether we can tell whether one individual’s morality is better than another’s… and what it means if we can.
And what it means if we can’t.
I did.
“moral values are little more than intellectual constructs without grounding in reality”
And if you’d like me to define “reality”, I’ll put it here:
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.
I honestly don’t see how that definition does not meet your request.
“moral values are little more than intellectual constructs without grounding in reality”
WHO SAID THAT?
I said it.
In response to you asking for an example of atheistic moral nihilism.
“I’d also be down with discussing whether we can tell whether one individual’s morality is better than another’s”
I’m not down with that because somebody else said it and and I’ve already acknowledged that I don’t know exactly what that person meant.
I am down with an example of atheistic moral nihilism that isn’t just some word string you thought up and put inside quotation marks. Not that it would mean much more than that some atheist somewhere said it, but it would be a start.
So you are not “down with discussing whether we can tell whether one individual’s morality is better than another’s”.
Fair enough.
If we cannot discuss whether we can distinguish between individual moralities, I’d be okay with calling that something between “moral agnosticism” and “moral nihilism”.
(Now I’m beginning to wonder if what you’re not really asking is “who are you arguing against when you talk about moral nihilism in your very first comment to this post?” and I’ll point to my original post to answer the question that I think you’re asking: the atheists with whom I have argued that teetered between a stance of moral nihilism when they argue against theism and totter back to using moral artifacts in their arguments when they argue for this or that public policy and those folks are the first folks who came to mind when I read Santorum’s paragraph in the original post to which my comment responded.)
“I said it.”
Excellent! You are a moral nihilist and speak only for yourself. Now we’re getting somewhere.
I am not a moral nihilist.
You asked for an example of moral nihilism and I gave you an example of a statement that encapsulated moral nihilism.
I’m honestly not understanding what you are not understanding.
“If we cannot discuss whether we can distinguish between individual moralities”
That’s not the same thing as “better”.
“I’d be okay with calling that something between ‘moral agnosticism’ and ‘moral nihilism’.”
That would be silly, because “agnosticism” as it was coined was about knowledge of objective existence, and “moral nihilism”. as defined in your other comment, is a denial of objective existence.
“the atheists with whom I have argued that teetered between a stance of moral nihilism when they argue against theism”
Interesting that when you post this observation in a public forum you get feedback from atheists who don’t agree that they have a stance of moral nihilism.
That would be silly, because “agnosticism” as it was coined was about knowledge of objective existence, and “moral nihilism”. as defined in your other comment, is a denial of objective existence.
I’d compare to the difference between agnosticism and atheism when it comes to the existence of a god. You may say that, on a practical level, there is a *HUGE* difference between atheism and agnosticism, it seems to me that, on a practical level, there really isn’t (at least if the agnosticism in question isn’t co-extensive with apathism).
Interesting that when you post this observation in a public forum you get feedback from atheists who don’t agree that they have a stance of moral nihilism.
I also went on to say:
I’m just always fascinated what the foundation of atheist morality tends toward. Consequentialism? Well, all you have to do is point out that the consequences are different (and, quite regularly, worse than advertised) to successfully counter that argument… at which point the argument usually switches to some form of either motive-based consequentialism (compare to theism!) or rule consequentialism (compare to theism!) and, at that point, the argument usually falls into some vague moral nihilism mixed with moral condemnation for disagreeing (compare to theism!).
If you are an atheist (or agnostic, I suppose), what have you built your moral intuitions upon? Something deontological?
Steve S, you need to move past thinking of “nihilism” as a negative descriptor. “There is no justice, there’s Just Us” is a nihilist statement. “You’ve all got to work it out for yourselves because us right now is all we have” is a nihilist statement.
Is there an award for most confusing thread of the month?
I suppose it may depend on how pervasive you see “theology” in public debates.
If you only see it among the Santorum types, I imagine that this thread is incomprehensible.
Things still do feel wrong to someone who denies absolute cosmic wrongness; what feels wrong to a moral nihilist feels wrong for the same reason that something else feels wrong to a moral realist: socialization. There isn’t any reason that the statement “That’s wrong” needs to be understood to be a claim about absolute wrongness; it can be a statement about felt wrongness. Whether something is wrong in an absolute accounting is yet another question beyond just whether something is wrong, because What Is Wrong really is what we tell each other and teach each other and as a result feel is wrong. When a moral nihilist says That’s Wrong, he’s just doing the same human thing that a moral realist does when he says it, it’s just that the moral realist may also believe that what he says is wrong is Absolutely Wrong (but at the same time, he might not).
Feelings, then.
Quick, let’s pass some laws!
“Feelings, then.”
In part, yes.
“Quick, let’s pass some laws!”
No, much better we follow the laws of invisible, putative deities.
No, much better we follow the laws of invisible, putative deities.
Not my argument in the slightest.
(Though I can see why you’d prefer to argue against it.)
“(Though I can see why you’d prefer to argue against it.)”
Thus far I’m not finding much to argue against. You introduced the concept of atheistic moral nihilism and illustrate it with quotes that appear to be made from whole cloth, or from a third party who doesn’t seem to me to be professing nihilism. Getting tiresome in a hurry.
So let’s bust out Wikipedia.
“Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is the meta-ethical view that morality does not exist as something inherent to objective reality; therefore no action is necessarily preferable to any other.”
Does that answer your question or are you upset that I am now giving you words written by someone else who may, for all you know, be a Christian?
“Does that answer your question ”
My question, “what does Wikipedia say about moral nihilism?” Why no, you’re not answering anything I’ve asked. What I have been asking is for is an example of atheistic moral nihilism. Since you imply in your first comment above that you can’t get through consecutive sentences of dialogue with an atheist without such a sentiment being uttered it ought to be easy.
So you want an example of moral nihilism?
Sure. I was arguing a theistic position against an atheist and he argued that morality was a construct like so many flying spaghetti monsters.
If that does not answer your question, I’m afraid that I have no idea what you’re asking for when you ask for an example of atheistic moral nihilism. I’m going to need an example of what you’d consider a proper example.
” I was arguing a theistic position against an atheist and he argued that morality was a construct like so many flying spaghetti monsters.”
See, this is the basic problem we’re having here; you’re tossing off some glib paraphrase of something someone supposedly said to you in a conversation and making sweeping statements about atheists and moral nihilism as a result. That strikes me as a very silly thing to do.
People sometimes have serious conversations. Also, sometimes your favorite sports team loses and you’re pissed off and you say, “there is no God, it’s all meaningless, and if I had the nuclear go codes I’d blow the whole thing up right now.” We’ve all been there.
Up top you imply in your first comment that atheists toss off nihilistic tropes like they’re ordering lunch. Naturally I was shocked to learn that I do this. I assure you, neither I nor the other atheists I know do this, except in the course of emotional reactions that are common to all human beings. Based on your glib recapitulation of an alleged conversation I have no way of knowing if this was 0.05% of a serious conversation or if it was three in the morning and the two of you were drunk and high.
When you imply that people are moral nihilists they think of more than just the bland statement that there is no such thing as objective morality — a statement I might agree with, by the way, depending on how we bounded our terminology — they also take the implication of “all things are permitted,” and so on. I’d be more careful about using terms like “nihilism.” It’s one of those things that atheists hear all the time and strikes them as bigoted, and they get tired of it.
I assure you, neither I nor the other atheists I know do this, except in the course of emotional reactions that are common to all human beings.
Fair enough. I also put a disclaimer at the end of my original post wondering if I was the only person who had experienced this. Apparently you have not experienced this.
When you imply that people are moral nihilists they think of more than just the bland statement that there is no such thing as objective morality — a statement I might agree with, by the way, depending on how we bounded our terminology — they also take the implication of “all things are permitted,” and so on. I’d be more careful about using terms like “nihilism.” It’s one of those things that atheists hear all the time and strikes them as bigoted, and they get tired of it.
As an atheist, let me tell you that I do not see the term “nihilist” as bigoted nor is it a term that makes me tired. (I actually find it quite useful and interesting.)
In addition to that, I find that when I dig into the theories of moral foundations on the part of atheists, I have found that they tend toward a vague consequentialism that has a lot of unquestioned assumptions.
(And stating that seems to me to be far more fruitful than asking you for an example of atheists seeing the term “nihilism” as bigotry.)
Sure, feelings, then.
…What are we talking about again?
The silliness that was Santorum’s statement:
I’ve been pretty clear that the left in America has their own moral code in which they want to impose on this country. You can call it a theology. You can call it a moral code. You can call it a world view, but they have their own moral code that they want to impose on everybody else.
It certainly isn’t the most unfair thing that a conservative has ever said about a liberal. (Is that your argument here? You started out talking about moral nihilism, but you also refer to an argument you’re making somewhere. Is that to do with the Santorum quote?) Many liberals clearly do want to encode parts of their moral code in law (even if, as I suspect, they frequently don’t actually consider the particular outcome preferences they are after to be part of a moral code as such so much as just practical objectives that [they think] most people willing to look at the alternatives impartially would agree are preferable – that still is part of a moral code, as you would hasten to insist, I assume). But it’s false to say that they want to impose their entire code on the entire country. But in the context of exaggeration done in the course of political campaigns, this is really not that much of an extreme example.
…It also doesn’t distinguish them from Rick “I Am Not A Libertarian” Santorum himself, as you know. Indeed, that’s his whole point. What he wants to do really is not all that scary all things considered, because we already have theological ideologues (theologues?) trying to impose their moral code on you. Mine’s just better!
It also doesn’t distinguish them from Rick “I Am Not A Libertarian” Santorum himself, as you know.
Indeed I do.
I wish that they did a better job of doing so.
Well, they are highly distinguishable by their codes. This doesn’t have to be a merely schematic, content-free, value-free discussion. I like the idea of choosing among slates of values and agendas (merely because I prefer one to another, not because they are absolutely superior), myself. Libertarianism’s just another one of those.
I like the idea of choosing among slates of values and agendas (merely because I prefer one to another, not because they are absolutely superior), myself.
As do I. As a matter of fact, I see it as a good in and of itself.
Well, wonderful.
You might find this of interest: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/santorum-satan-systematically-destroying-america
More evidence. Thanks.
Jay- Oh i think there is good and bad. I just don’t think you can say a religious or atheist moral framework is automatically gooder or bader then the other. Moral frameworks are great and all, but they don’t tell you whether someone is a serial killer or not. I’d want to know in more detail then the rough terms of religious or atheist to figure out someones morality. There are plenty of self-identified jews who are far closer to being agnostic then religious. That doesn’t make them any less pious or jewish or moral or anything.
Founded upon what, Greg?
(And didn’t your name used to be Gregiank?)
What…. am i not capitalized anymore? I guess the powers that be are oppressing me and trying to stigmatize me. Either that or i am absolutely terrible at picking pseudonyms for my pseudonym.
“Founded on what?” Well that is a simple question isn’t it? We’re going out to dinner in a few so i’ll say that i think, as i stated above, people’s morality flows from deeply personal senses of being loved and how they relate to authority. Not that philosophy and religion aren’t important and that people don’t think deeply about them. I don’t think God is needed to believe in right and wrong.
I was using generic to mean a generalization about all atheist or religious type ideas. A specific atheist or religious idea/concept can be better then then the mean or far worse. But as a generalization i don’t think atheist or religious moral frameworks are better or worse then each other.
Feelings then. And upbringing.
I think I’m edging back toward “nihilism” here.
Why? If you show me a room of 100 random self-professed Christians, would you bet that more than 20 had read the entire Bible? If not, how can say there is a good and evil without nihilism? Further, the Bible hasn’t been radically edited over the past 500 years – would you say that what is considered right and wrong hasn’t changed among the faithful?
I think in this argument you are starting from an assumption that “morality comes from religion,” which is why there is an assumption that an atheist/agnostic must therefore either be tied to nihilism or
living some kind of lie. But I think you need to show your work for step one. I know a lot of people who aren’t believers, and I can’t think of any that I would describe as being nihilistic.
No, my assumption that morality which comes from religion requires less rigorous intellectual defenses than morality that is based upon intellectual rigor divorced from reliance on traditional thought.
Perhaps.
I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of what drives our morality is a pretty deep rooted combination of hard wiring and cultural influence, but that some of us are better at finding ways to intellectually back into a morality that is already in place.
“I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of what drives our morality is a pretty deep rooted combination of hard wiring and cultural influence…”
I think that’s entirely true. And I think that’s what Jaybird was alluding to in his initial comment about how atheists will tell you that religion is based on nothing, and then construct a moral code that is little more than a religious one with pieces of masking tape over the word “God”.
DD,
have I given you my argument on how America is G-d, yet?
Kyle, out of curiosity, would you say that Santorum’s world view is one that results in the world being a worse place?
Would we, as a country, be better off if there were fewer people (or, at least, fewer people in power) with Santorum’s world view?
I suspect that Santorum’s world view is like most other’s in this respect, in as much as it could be used to make the world a far better or a far worse place, depending upon who get’s to actually have the keys.
Closed and sheltered does not a better world make.
People who are afraid of ideas bother me to a large extent.
Depends on what you mean. If we’re speaking about any kind of theological politics, then it depends on who’s in power (as Tod says), the moral quality of their theology, and whether or not they respect the state as a secular institution. If we’re speaking about Santorum’s specific cafeteria-catholicism /American exceptionalism theology, then I’d say his worldview is likely, overall, to make the world a worse place.
Would we, as a country, be better off if there were fewer people (or, at least, fewer people in power) with Santorum’s world view?
All aspects of his worldview considered, yes. Given, for example, that Santorum thinks it’s wonderful that we may be assassinating Iranian scientists, I’d say his worldview is pretty darn wretched.
For what it’s worth, I tend to agree.
I do find it funny that my intuitions on that stem from someplace, for lack of a better description, theological.
JB, I think a world full of Santorums could live in better harmony & happiness than a world full of Jaybirds. Much happier.
Is this an answer to yr interrog, I dunno. But he’s much less combative than I think you give him credit for. As a Catholic, he still has that Turn the Other Cheek thing happening.
On the other hand, he’d have killed fucking Hitler before he really got started, smote him down like Mighty Jehovah would have.
Mighty Jehovah’s part of The Holy Trinity too, y’know, along with Jesus. Dunno where MightyJ stands on Iran nuking the Israelis, but I think He wouldn’t have that big a problem with Israel mucking the mullahs first.
You secularists get so abstract and religious sometimes. ;-P Whatever happened to common sense?
Tom,
The problem is that Santorum doesn’t live in a world full of Santorums and CANNOT accept that fact. He thinks that if only enough intervention occurs, the world would be rivers of Santorum, flowing freely. That’s problematic for a number of reasons.
As someone who grew up in the Southern Baptist Church, let me suggest that the “harmony” assumption is ill-founded and the “happiness” assumption is downright *WRONG*.
Of course, maybe Santorum’s Catholicism cannot be analogized to the Southern Baptist Faith with which I was raised… but, I’m sure, you’ll see that I think that it’s as easy as swapping out this for that.
Well, when it’s you who’s pissing off the diving board, maybe you’ll suddenly find your common sense again.
Until then, happy searching!
Well, we know where Mighty Jehovah stood on killing that fishing Hitler. YHWH didn’t lift a finger towards that end — Adolf did the job himself, and if it had turned out he wasn’t up to the task, the “honors” would have fallen to the godless Soviets.
Oh, and another thing — a world of Santorums would not live in harmony and happiness. When confronted with the pernicious fact of the existence of people different from themselves, co-religionists can huddle together, call themselves an oppressed minority, and find solidarity. But given open dominance and the establishment of orthodoxy, they will sooner or later begin to disagree amongst themselves and soon enough, you’ve got schism. Then there would be inquisitions, internal crusades, and holy war. E.g., 451, 656-661, 1054, 1209, 1229, 1378, 1420, and 1524-1651.
“[W]e know where Mighty Jehovah stood on killing that fishing Hitler.”
Mighty Jehovah hasn’t done anything overt in the world since about two seconds after Jesus died, when the Temple wall ripped open. Which was the whole point of Jesus’s death, really; that Mighty Jehovah was done messing with the world. We want to kill the immortal healer, that’s our own choice.
According to the documents, a great many things happened in Acts.
Just sayin’.
When confronted with the pernicious fact of the existence of people different from themselves, co-religionists can huddle together, call themselves an oppressed minority, and find solidarity. But given open dominance and the establishment of orthodoxy, they will sooner or later begin to disagree amongst themselves and soon enough, you’ve got schism.
The only problem in this sentence is that the phrase “co-religionists” may suggest to the careless reader that it is a limiting characteristic, rather than a merely descriptive one. “Co-religionists,” “co-ideologists,” “co-ethnics,” or what have you, once our common enemy is gone, those of us who remain will fight each other. (It didn’t take long after Cornwallis’s surrender, for example, for the colonies-cum-states to start threatening to invade each other.)