In a speech he recently made to the Ohio Christian Alliance, Rick Santorum, a former Senator from Pennsylvania and a Republican candidate for President, recently accused President Obama of having a “phony theology,” one that does not derive from The Bible and which the President has imposed on the citizens of the United States.
Although Santorum later admitted that Obama is a Christian — Santorum: “I wasn’t suggesting the president was not a Christian. I accept the fact that the president’s a Christian….” — it remains the case that the President’s theology is a secular belief system.
Speaking for myself, I find it difficult to glean the mediating concepts Santorum needs to use in order to logically reconcile his claim that Obama is a Christian (as is Santorum and the citizens to which he directs his propaganda) and the claim that Obama believes and wishes to impose a phony theology on America? Amazingly enough, claims of this sort are shaky ground for a Catholic politician in the United States, the Catholic’s Church being the Whore of Babylon and the Pope the Antichrist for some of protestant America. One might wonder why Santorum makes these claims given the history of anti-Catholicism in the United States.
Be that as it may, Santorum did eventually clarify his position on Obama’s theology. Santorum believes Obama is an environmentalist. That is Obama’s theology! Moreover, environmentalism is not only a theology, it is a belief system based on the misuse of scientific evidence. The abuse: Claims which assert the existence of anthropocentric global warming are a “hoax,” according to Santorum. The evidence does not support the anthropocentric global warming position. (The anthropocentric global warming thesis is the consensus opinion among the experts.) And Obama, for his part, has been an industry-friendly advocate of green energy proposals. Because he is such, Obama wants to impose his “phony theology,” environmentalism, on the United States.
The crux of the matter: Are climate science, ecology and biology theological belief systems? Is environmentalism, the practical use of these sciences, a theology? Not at all if by theology one means a discourse (logos) about the nature of the divine (theos being the Greek word for God). One can be an atheist, a practicing scientist and an environmentalist without contradiction. These are not mutually exclusive terms. Nor does scientific practice entail the enchantment of nature. A scientist can practice her craft believing the universe to be nothing more than a consciousless, intentionless, aimless set of mechanisms. But historical semantics does not concern an obscurantist thinker like Santorum. He only needs to label environmentalism a theology because it is a belief system, and it, like every belief system, allegedly has a theological core and even a theodicy.
That modern science and the practical disciplines based on it lack a concept of the divine does not matter here. Nor does it matter that belief systems are not also theologies. What matters for individuals like Santorum is the conflation of the terms “theology” and “belief system” equips him with the tool needed to claim that Obama is oppressing Christians with a “phony theology.” Obama wants to impose both bad science (a “hoax”) and a “phony theology” (environmentalism) on Americans. Environmentalism raises First Amendment issues for Santorum and those who think like him, environmentalism being a religion! Obama’s support for such injures those who practice different religions.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. “It means just what I choose it to mean — neither more or less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”




6 Comments

If Santorum wants to make this a debate about secularism/science vrs. theology/wishfulthinking then bring it on. The American people are not as dumb as he would like to think.
Ultimately, I’m afraid we do need a earth/species/habitat focused theology. Otherwise you get people like Santorum who arrogantly assert that the Earth and its resources is simply raw material for humans to exploit.
This position is a sin against prudence. Humans are too irrational to make the correct environmental decisions on an individual to individual basis….we are too greedy and can’t comprehend the true consequences of our actions. To develop a more civilized, sustainable attitude towards climate change and environmental damage, we need to revere and value the earth, ecosystems, and other species for their own sake.
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
Ultimately that is 100% correct, the MOTU intend to achieve absolute control, and no tactic is off-limits in that effort.
The religious-right is fine with supporting the authoritarian elite because they believe the BIG LIE that the authoritarian elite are God-fearing, Christian men, who have the best interests of the fundy-right at heart.
Of course the 1% as represented by the right-wing, authoritarian elite don’t care a fig about the religious-right other than as an easily manipulated voting bloc.
It took the devastation of WWII to silence the hicks who supported the rise of National Socialism in 1930s Germany; I have yet see any hint of the mechanism by which we might free ourselves of the pernicious influence of the rubes supporting America’s authoritarian right.
It’s difficult for rational people to construct a theology if they need one. Santorum and his kind can attribute a theology to others because they could care a damn about reason, science, truth, authenticity, etc. But the reasonable person needs a believable theos, and those are difficult to construct and to successfully propagate. After all, we know that the world does not lack crackpots wishing to pass themselves off as prophets. Happily, most of them fail in their endeavors!
It is unfortunate that neither the citizens nor the elite in the United States take seriously the climate and ecological sciences. This society and government would act differently than it has if Americans treated these sciences, their findings and the world with the respect they deserve.
Rick Santorum’s grab for the “Stupid Vote” (votes of ignorant people) shows here. He’s inferring Obama’s the wrong color, possibly a wrong religion, and that Environmental Science is a religion polluting the President.
Santorum it seems to me is trying hard to get President Obama reelected in a landslide. MSNBC has pushed his candidacy hard for more than a year.
By publicly waving his hands around and telling everyone the HE [Santorum] is the anti-environment candidate, Santorum I think is trying to make Obama look like the pro-environment candidate, despite his preposterous lies about Environmental Science:
1. There aren’t Oil Spills “anymore;”
2. Coal provides Clean Energy;
3. Nuclear Energy is safe;
4. We need Nuclear Energy;
5. We need Fracking;
6. We need a Pipeline (Obama just approved one yesterday);
7. We need to keep using Fossil Fuels;
5. I could go on for weeks;
6. In fact, if anyone knows of a case of President Obama telling the truth about Climate Science in his entire political career, I’d like to know about it:
A. I’ve been observing him for a long time, but I’ve never seen wholly true statement [entire speech] from him yet on the subject: He puts some applause lines in his speeches, calculated to get votes of those impressed by what he says. But he often pushes one of the above lies.
B. If a President specifies a certain Greenhouse Gas as a big problem, he then has a responsibility to at least try to reduce the presence of that Gas in the Atmosphere.
The way I see it, if Obama or his accomplice Santorum wins the election, the Environment is in Big Trouble.
If Environmental Science is a church, I hope the President starts attending regularly.
When one’s ‘lying’ eyes see marine bottom organisms crawling OUT of tide pools in the Florida Keys to escape the boiling effects of solar ponding therein; one inherently knows GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL.
Who are we going to believe? Our eyes, or our politicians?