Skip to comments.Gasp! Rick Santorum is opposed to abortion and pornography! The horror! The gall!
Posted on 01/06/2012 1:34:04 PM PST by NYer
Who does he think he is: a reasonable, respectable, pro-family, pro-life, anti-smut Catholic?
I write that in response to the article, "Santorum wants to impose 'Judeo-Christian Sharia'", penned by Dean Obeidallah, who is described as a comedian. That helps to explain why he wrote it for CNN site, which many people do consider a joke:
4. No porn! I'm not kidding. Santorum signed "The Marriage Vow" pledge (PDF) authored by the Family Leader organization, under which he swears to oppose pornography. I think many would agree that alone should disqualify him from being president.
Oh, the deep belly laughs flow through the hip, college audience. Because we all know that cool people dig the degragation and objectification of women, the crass commercialization of sexual acts, and the continued destruction of virtue and basic morality. Yes, cool stuff, all that. However, considering that "comedian" Obeidallah also thinks marriage is an old-fashioned, stupid, soul-sucking, fun-killing sentence to eternal doom, I suppose it follows.
But back to Obeidallah's piece on Santorum, which is played for cheap laughs, but raises some serious points despite Obeidallah's inability to be either serious or knowledgeable about those points. He writes:
Then there's "Santorum Two." This Santorum wants to impose conservative Christian law upon America. Am I being hyperbolic or overly dramatic with this statement? I wish I were, but I'm not.
Plainly put, Rick Santorum wants to convert our current legal system into one that requires our laws to be in agreement with religious law, not unlike what the Taliban want to do in Afghanistan.
How does Obeidallah arrive at such stunning, if laughable, knowledge?
He told a crowd at a November campaign stop in Iowa in no uncertain terms, "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law."
On Thanksgiving Day at an Iowa candidates' forum, he reiterated: "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law."
Yes, that means exactly what you think it does: Santorum believes that each and every one of our government's laws must match God's law, warning that "as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation." I'm not exactly sure what "agitation" means in this context, but I think it's a code word for something much worse than acid reflux.
Goodness, that is horrifying stuff. What would the founders of this fair nation think of such radical, porn-smothering rhetoric? After all, it's not as though they saw any connection between God, natural law, and civil laws. Right?
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
That, Mr. Obeidallah, is the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. Russell Kirk, in his seminal work, The Roots of the American Order (3rd edition, 1991), observed that this paragraph is an obvious reference to natural law, also noting, however, that "Whether the signers of the Declaration understood clearly what was meant by natural law, or could have agreed upon a clear definition of that term, has been inconclusively discussed" (pp 402, 403). Be that as it may, what Rick Santorum articulated is not only in keeping with what Kirk called "the roots of American order", it also reflects a basic Catholic understanding of the relationship between the divine law and natural law:
The "divine and natural" law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. ... This law is called "natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature. ...
The natural law, the Creator's very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature. (CCC, pars 1955, 1959)
Bottom line: Obeidallah's opposition to "Rick Santorum's Sharia law" is really a slightly obscured opposition to (and slanderous misrepresentation of) Catholic beliefs that are rooted in natural reason, not declarations of divinely revealed doctrine. These include the belief in the inherent dignity of all men (thus opposition to abortion, birth control, and pornography) and the unique and important place of marriage and the nuclear family in a society and civilization (thus opposition to "gay marriage").The key here is that this natural law, upon which civil law should rest, is "present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men" (CCC, par 1956).
Thus, the Declaration of Independence does not say, "We declare these truths to be true based on our authority and whim and mood and economic goals, etc.", but: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (emphasis added for Obeidallah fans).
There are plenty of good and proper questions that should be asked of Rick Santorum and the other candidates. After all, every presidential candidate (with the possible exception of Sen. Obama) must undergo the sort of scrutiny, criticism, and relentless analysis that would drive most people insane. Some of that is acceptable and necessary; some of it is partisan and borders on rude and uncharitable. And some of it is simply mud-slinging, fact-smashing vitriol. Obeidallah's piece obviously falls into the latter. I suggest he sticks to comedythe intended variety.
While I agree with the author’s thesis, there is no excuse for this kind of misspelling. It detracts from his credibility. We have spell checkers, nowadays.
Hey, Santorum does not believe in individualism. He believes government has the right to be in your bedroom. I don’t think he is a small government kinda guy.
In 2001, a German named Armin Meiwes advertised for, and found an individual perfectly willing to be butchered and eaten. It was strictly a consensual act between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. Not surprisingly, once he was convicted (of manslaughter) a lot of Germans voiced support for him since his victim had been a knowing and willing participant. Was the German government wrong in prosecuting him?
He is very much a small government guy. Just has a large family.
I am liking Rick more and more.