Posted on 09/15/2012 12:12:11 PM PDT by Uncle Slayton
(CBS News) Challenging "economic conservatives and libertarian types who say, 'Oh we don't want to talk about the social issues,'" former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., told the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, "Without the church and the family, there is no conservative movement, there is no basic values in America enforced, and there is no future for our country."
Greeted by a wildly enthusiastic standing ovation, Santorum - considered the "social issues" candidate in the 2012 Republican presidential primary and, until his departure from the race in April, the last serious threat to Mitt Romney for the party's nomination - said that in spite of Romney's proclaimed tunnel-focus on the economy, "there's a lot more at stake than just economics."
Piggy-backing off his former stump speech (during which he often cited a restoration of the traditional family unit as the way to a stronger economy), Santorum tried to make the case Saturday that the church and family are the only dependable backbones of the conservative movement. "We will never have the media on our side - ever, in this country," he said. "We will never have the elite, smart people on our side."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Of the candidates that ran for the 2012 GOP Nomination, Rick Santorum would have been the best candidate and the best president.
Indeed. Without social conservatism, there is no fiscal conservatism. Social liberalism always leads to more statism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIw5_a_jI0o
That alienates men like me.
The Presbyterian church left me decades ago.
While I love and enjoy my family, I am basically a loner. If I didn’t have a family with 3 adult children, and at last count 5 grandkids, I would still be a dedicated conservative.
Rick is incorrect.
Without family there is no human race. But the reason why we don’t want social issues in the forefront is that no matter how many Sandra Flukes they bait us with Democrats aren’t running against church and family. Pretending they are makes us look stupid. Or if not stupid, speaking in empty generalities. Like when we talk about individual responsibility or they about shared responsibility. Nobody cares.
Where their policies endanger either it’s almost always an economic issue, anyway. The Fluke thing is about freedom of religion only because government is taking over healthcare.
Familly OK, but ... Church?
Ayn Rand acolytes are essentially near-perfect conservatives, and most of them have no ties to any religion.
Amen. But if he added middle class to Church and family he would win in a landslide. I hope Santorum did not vote for any job exporting trade deals.
I wish the social conservatives wouldn’t insult those of us who are conservatives without the church and family. That is just stupid when you are in elections that are close.
When all is said and done, the most important thing is the math and winning elections, which influence matters of economics, foreign policy, etc.
The fact is that social conservatism will exist in civil society despite who is president.
I’m sorry, but the president isn’t and shouldn’t be the preacher in chief. He isn’t the Pope.
On the other hand, I strongly defend social conservatism against any encroachment by the state and its demeaning by the state or by liberals, the liberal media, or the Democratic Party.
I have no problem being allies with social conservatives, because they are far more protective of my freedom than Marxists, secular leftists and Democrats who despise the United States, but please don’t chuck those of us who you need to protect you from state tyranny, socialism, and an appeasement policy towards Muslim terrorists and illegals.
A corrupt "near perfect conservative" is just as deadly as near perfect liberal. And we are all corrupt. There must be a transcendent ethic to hold a people togeather. History tells us that the Randian ideal more often comes in form of Nietzsche's Ubermensch than as Hank Reardon. Nihilism is the only alternative to Theism. There's no way around it.
He’s speaking in broad terms and in that respect he’s correct. Of course there are moral, strong family, socially conservative agnostics. They’re just relatively unusual as compared to their religious counterparts.
Disagree with the religious criteria.
There are many nonreligious people who know right from wrong, who have ideals and values we can respect, and who lead morally good and ethical lives.
And there are many examples today of people who claim to be religious, who even believe themselves to be religious, but do not know right from wrong, do not understand what is good and what is bad, and who do not know live a moral or ethical life.
Look at John Kerry for example.
Nancy Pelosi is another.
“The Presbyterian church left me decades ago.”
The Anglican church left me. I feel your pain and I understand. But God still loves you, he’s never stopped. There are faithful people still out there and faithful churches and we need all the good people - especially folks like you, that we can get. :)
Peace + blessings Sir.
Have a wonderful weekend.
Speak for yourself.
“There are many nonreligious people who know right from wrong, who have ideals and values we can respect, and who lead morally good and ethical lives.”
Ayn Rand was right about many things. However - would you want your daughters to follow her example? Do you think they would be happy living their personal life the same way that she did?
Do you think Ayn Rand was happy with her home life?
We are all fallen people. It isn’t weakness that encourages us to get together regularly and support one another. We cannot do it alone, and if we try, we will fail.
The bible ties it all together. I agree, people can be moral without knowing God - Roman’s says so. However, the question still remains. Where does morality come from? Is morality intrinsic, or extrinsic? If it is extrinsic, how do we discover what is or is not moral?
I don’t know Kerry or Pelosi personally.
I believe they are nominal Catholics,
because a devout Catholic wouldn’t vote
the way they vote, nor spout platitudes that are
the direct opposite of the faith they “profess.”
If they were educated in Catholic schools (and
they are older than I,) they KNOW the difference
between right and wrong, they just prefer to
ignore that unpleasant truth for their careers.
“God” (for those of us are believers), have mercy
on them when their time here has ended.
Judge yourself by the 10 commandments. Be honest.
I prefer to follow Aristotle's Ethics. Have you ever wondered where "Patience is a virtue" comes from?
Ayn Rand had a religion:
Ayn Rand said:
I am done with the monster of “we,” the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame. And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: “I.”
Lucifer said:
Isaiah 14:14
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Church is where the future generations learn about Jesus and family is where they attempt to practice what he taught.
No, virtue comes from God.
Aristotle may have recognized it; he didn't create it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.