An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Santorum’s Cherry Picking
Because of his Catholic faith Rick Santorum opposes birth control. But just how strong is Santorum’s faith – how often does he actually listen to the Bishops? Juan Cole reminds not very often.
Top Ten Catholic Teachings Santorum Rejects while Obsessing about Birth Control
- So for instance, Pope John Paul II was against anyone going to war against Iraq I think you’ll find that Rick Santorum managed to ignore that Catholic teaching.
- The Conference of Catholic Bishops requires that health care be provided to all Americans. I.e., Rick Santorum’s opposition to universal health care is a betrayal of the Catholic faith he is always trumpeting.
- The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty for criminals in almost all situations. (Santorum largely supports executions.)
- The US Conference of Bishops has urged that the federal minimum wage be increased, for the working poor. Santorum in the Senate repeatedly voted against the minimum wage.
- The bishops want welfare for all needy families, saying “We reiterate our call for a minimum national welfare benefit that will permit children and their parents to live in dignity. A decent society will not balance its budget on the backs of poor children.” Santorum is a critic of welfare.
- The US bishops say that “the basic rights of workers must be respected–the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions…”. Santorum, who used to be supportive of unions in the 1990s, has now, predictably, turned against them.
- Catholic bishops demand the withdrawal of Israel from Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. Rick Santorum denies that there are any Palestinians, so I guess he doesn’t agree with the bishops on that one.
- The US Conference of Catholic Bishops ripped into Arizona’s law on treatment of immigrants, Cardinal Roger Mahony characterized Arizona’s S.B. 1070 as “the country’s most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless anti-immigrant law,” saying it is based on “totally flawed reasoning: that immigrants come to our country to rob, plunder, and consume public resources.” He even suggested that the law is a harbinger of an American Nazism! Santorum attacks ‘anchor babies’ or the provision of any services to children of illegal immigrants born and brought up in the US.
- The Bishops have urged that illegal immigrants not be treated as criminals and that their contribution to this country be recognized.
- The US Conference of Bishops has denounced, as has the Pope, the Bush idea of ‘preventive war’, and has come out against an attack on Iran in the absence of a real and present threat of an Iranian assault on the US. In contrast, Santorum wants to play Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove and ride the rocket down on Isfahan himself.
So as it turns out Rick Santorum is not a particularly good Catholic but just another political hack and homophobe.
Cross posted at Newshoggers
42 Responses to “Santorum’s Cherry Picking”
Thank you Ron. The list Juan Cole put together is a telling point-by-point breakdown of the obscene false front being put out, not only by Santorum, but by the majority of Republican candidates.
Thanks for posting it and I look forward to all the reasoned replies from our friends on the right as to why none of it matters.
Santorum is just another cowboy conservative.
wait a sec sf, we cowboys cottonpickin’ resemble that remark
I do not think it accurate to assert that Santorum claims to automatically follow Catholic doctrine, and to automatically follow the recommendations of various officials in the Catholic Church. Rather, it is accurate to say that Catholic doctrine and recommendations stand a good chance of garnering Rick Santorum’s attention, and of garnering his consideration of their ethicality. I think it fair to say that Santorum follows Catholic doctrine in instances in which he agrees with the moral reasoning.
Santorum has explained the Catholic contraception position with which he agrees: love, marriage, sex, and procreation all go together. Santorum believes it harmful to encourage the loss of any of those elements. This Business Insider article is relevant to the Catholic Church reasoning:
Here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx98N7imveA Santorum declares that he believes birth control ought be legally available, and that he would not vote to outlaw birth control.
One of my favorite quotes on religion in politics comes from a Baptist minister. Rev. John Leland, who was a leader of the Virginia Baptists around the time of the Constitutional Convention, said the following on July 4th 1802:
“Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it.”
Reverend John Leland would not have considered Rick Santorum’s meager references to amount to “a great noise about religion.” To the contrary, Reverend Leland would be shocked that any Americans would be offended by Santorum’s occasional references. In Reverend Leland’s day, reference to God was common.
George Washington, 1873 letter to Governors
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
John Adams
Patrick Henry
dm
“I think it fair to say that Santorum follows Catholic doctrine in instances in which he agrees with the moral reasoning.”
And doesn’t follow Catholic doctrine when he doesn’t agree. In other words he gets to pick and choose but doesn’t want to allow others to do the same. By what authority should he be able to do that?
This is the very essence of religious bigots. They seek to impose their moral authority on those who think otherwise by passing laws based on religion. Directly contravening the Constitution’s prohibition of such laws.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Ohioan, you assert that Santorum doesn’t want citizens to be allowed to choose.
In the instance of contraception, I have a link, above, in which Santorum says he believes contraception ought be available, and that he would not vote to make contraception unavailable. Regarding contraception, Santorum is not arguing for change in public policy, but, rather, is arguing for individuals to make moral choices to eschew contraception.
In Santorum’s opinion, why make that moral choice? Because love, marriage, sex, and procreation all go together, and because it is harmful to encourage the loss of any of those elements. We see, today, the damage which our epidemic of one parent households is wreaking. And we see much more damage, including the damage which Pope Paul VI predicted in 1965.
It is correct that Santorum does not favor allowing pregnant women to make a choice as to whether or not abortion is murder, and/or as to whether or not to murder their own child. Abortion is its own ethical issue: the unborn person’s right to life is violated.
Conversely, in contraception, there is no separate human whose rights are being violated. Regarding contraception, Santorum is clearly advocating for individuals to make a choice: choose a moral path which eschews premarital sex, and which eschews contraception, and which sets up acts of intimacy as the fully developed, divinely sparked acts which they were intended to be. By definition, Santorum is advocating for individuals to make a choice.
If you guys disagree with Santorum’s opinions, I am fine with that. However, you must comprehend his opinions before you can actually disagree with his opinions. In a sense, I am doing you a favor, via educating you as to his actual opinions.
I suspect that part of your misunderstanding of Santorum is caused by your having too much confidence in the messaging which the Obama 2012 campaign is putting out via its surrogates in media and on internet. That message: Santorum opposes legal contraception, is effective with uneducated voters who do not know any better. I am giving you guys the benefit of the doubt about being educated voters. I expect you to discern between campaign messaging which amounts, in the end, to a clever lie, vs the actuality of Santorum’s public arguments and opinions. I am giving you a compliment: you guys are too smart to be left in ignorance. You guys are too smart to not be conversant with the truth of what Santorum is actually saying, vs. the falsehood of the Obama 2012 campaign messaging which is being disseminated through friendly media and internet channels.
And, to be clear: I am no smarter than anyone here. I just happen to have paid attention to what Santorum has actually been saying. I not so repulsed, by Santorum, as to be unable to actually listen to him, and to his actual reasoning and opinion.
I think Santorum is the kind of politician Jefferson was talking about in this 1813 letter to John Adams:
Santorum tries to wear the mantle of moral (religious) superiority – presumably in hopes of impressing that portion of the flock not diligent enough to bother determining whether or not it’s real. The problem is, his record betrays him. If the GOP is helpless enough to let him get to the general election this will be made (painfully) clear.
Excellent quote btw Ron. There are many such examples of the founders concerns about religious abuse of power. Republicans seem oblivous whenever these are pointed out however.
I’ll match a quote for a quote. This one from George Washington:
“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
dm
I understand the sophistry, and the political necessities, and, I think, the laws a President Santorum would sign rather than veto. Our conundrum is which Santorum would be President. The one who voted for Title X – Funding for contraception for poor women, or the one who voted against
an amendment that would:
[Increase funding and access to family planning services
Funds legislation that requires equitable prescription coverage for contraceptives under health plans
Funds legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs concerning emergency contraceptives.]
I think I know which laws he would sign by his voting record and would not want a President Santorum. Here is his voting record.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Rick_Santorum_Abortion.htm
Search for $100 million to see the contraception vote.
Votes overall.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Rick_Santorum.htm
dm,
With regards to Leland’s quote, I think you missed the point entirely. He was not disdaining any reference to God, but rather those who use public religiosity as a political tool. As Juan Cole (via Ron) correctly points out, Santorum is doing just that – putting on the appearance of Catholic authority when it suits him, and discarding it when he does not.
As to whether Santorum’s references to God and religion are “meager” and “occasional,” it is hard not to ask what planet you’re living on. Santorum has put his faith front and center, not just in this race, but in his public life in general. A devout Catholic or fervent Evangelical might not find his references to religion unusual, but from the perspective of the moderately religious or non-religious, he’s wearing his faith on his sleeve, his lapel pin, and anywhere else it might be noticed.
With regards to contraception, you wrote:
“Santorum is clearly advocating for individuals to make a choice: choose a moral path which eschews premarital sex, and which eschews contraception, and which sets up acts of intimacy as the fully developed, divinely sparked acts which they were intended to be. By definition, Santorum is advocating for individuals to make a choice.”
I’d edit that last sentence to read “by definition, Santorum is advocating for individuals to follow Catholic doctrine.” Saying that there is a “moral choice” where everything outside of Catholic doctrine (premarital sex, contraception, etc.) is immoral isn’t advocating “choice” at all. It is arguing for a specific church’s teachings as superior – something which is not covered in the Presidential job description.
Ron Beasley, my argument, that Catholic doctrine stands a good chance of garnering Santorum’s consideration of it, amounts to an argument that Santorum truly is following Geo Washington’s injunction to
Zephyr, regarding your opinion “Santorum tries to wear the mantle of moral (religious) superiority”. This is projection, by you, which is abetted by the politically correct doctrine that the true problem with society occurs when people make moral judgements. That this politically correct doctrine is, in itself, a moral judgement, never occurs to to any politically correct person. There is nothing offensive about Santorum either making moral judgement, or exhibiting moral leadership which is designed to reduce the massive problems we are currently experiencing from high incidence of single parenthood. There is nothing offensive about either you or Santorum expressing your moral opinions. The politically correct shadow doctrine is a bunch of hooey.
Zephyr, you also say Republicans are oblivious about the Founders concerns about abuse of religious power. This assertion of yours is, also, hooey. As a general rule, conservatives (and even Republicans) understand freedom of religion, and all implications of freedom of religion, far better than liberals or moderates.
Lastly, I agree with your Geo Washington quote.
Ohioan, I do not agree with all of your argument. Santorum believes the Catholic hospitals issue is more about freedom of religion, and less about access to contraception. But, your argument is fair.
cjjcack, I appreciate your argument and your quote. What Rev. Leland’s quote meant, in his day and in his culture, does not resemble what you are trying to make it mean in our day and in our culture. Rev. Leland would be shocked at the degree to which you are shocked by Santorum’s occasional references to religion. Look at this part of Rev. Leland’s quote: “If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates….” In present day: is pure religion the criterion to denominate candidates? Not even close.
Separately, you are asserting Santorum is advocating that individuals ought follow Catholic doctrine because Catholic doctrine is authoritative and therefore ought be followed. I disagree. I have argued, throughout this thread, that Santorum is advocating the following of Catholic doctrine which makes sense to Santorum. When Santorum argues against birth control, he doesn’t say: avoid contraception because of the authority of the Catholic Church. Rather, he gives reasoned opinion: because contraception cheapens intimacy, and because contraception contributes to an epidemic of single parenthood which is damaging our society. Santorum does not represent that he follows all Catholic doctrine. He represents that he gives serious consideration to Catholic doctrine, i.e. he gives serious consideration to the reasoning which underlies Catholic doctrine, and he gives serious consideration to whether or not he ought follow that doctrine. This is where my argument differs from yours. Maybe we shall merely agree that we disagree.
Contraception leads to parenthood?
Yes, I think we’re going to have to disagree.
If I said contraception leads to parenthood, I ought have said that what underlies Santorum’s argument is that contraception leads to single parenthood.
Update: I said it correctly the first time! “contraception contributes to an epidemic of single parenthood which is damaging our society”
Given the fact that contraception by definition prevents parenthood, that it an absurd argument.
Contraception prevents pregnancy ergo no child ergo no parent ergo no parenthood… single or otherwise.
This new breed of Republican is the first to my knowledge to be this intentionally ignorant. They must have missed the public school experience.
“Evangelical Contraception” (the preaching of abstinence and refusing to allow children to attend sex education classes) is what leads to unplanned parenthood. ”
Horny” is Gods way of insuring a continued population. Withholding education and options to “the young and the horny” is crazy bordering on criminal.
FWIW DM – There is no such thing as single parenthood, you seem to be confusing deadbeat dads with with the tragedy of women raising children on their own.
You guys are apparently refusing to intellectually engage the larger argument far enough to recognize that it is grounded in reason. You disagree with the argument, fine. But, “absurd” is going too far, and “intentionally ignorant” is going too far.
You realize you are saying “absurd” and “intentionally ignorant” about the reasoning of highly educated Bishops and Popes, going back, at least, to 1965:
I’d counter that you are relying on the “reasoning” of Bishops and Popes which has been applied in defending church doctrine against the use of contraceptives. As such, the level of education of said Bishops and Popes becomes irrelevant. It is little more than an argument from authority.
Furthermore, I’d suggest that the concept of “illegitimacy” is quickly (and correctly) becoming an irrelevant one, as it is rooted in church authority. The idea that a child is somehow a second class citizen because it was not conceived and delivered with the blessing of a bunch of celibate priests is an odd one, and I believe one which should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Yep! Considering the lack of first hand knowledge (hopefully) Bishops and Popes have with sex you can understand how they’d miss little things like the fact contraceptives prevent… not cause pregnancy.
cjjack, I have not said whether I favor or oppose contraception. I got into this in order to correct the record re what Santorum has been saying. If we do not understand both sides, are we moderates or extremists?
I plead guilty to citing Bishops and Popes in an argument from authority. It seems, to me, interesting to note that you guys are asserting that decades of Bishops and Popes have, in their opinions regarding contraception, been intellectually “absurd” and “intentionally ignorant.” I disagree with some opinions of Bishops and Popes. Yet, I have difficulty imagining Popes embracing intentional ignorance.
Regarding Pope Paul VI use of “illegitimacy”, it is simply unfair to demand that a 1965 man have been perfectly adherent to conventions of language 47 years later, in 2012. Just as, imo, you have difficulty imagining the conventions of the Reverend Leland’s culture in 1802, so you have difficulty imagining the conventions of the culture of Pope Paul VI in 1965.
Guess you missed the part about The Inquisition, The Crusades, and the Churches position (and orders) regarding the Americas and Asia.
Edit to add: I almost left out the relationship with World War II Germany.
now I’m about as religious as a bucket of mud but even I can see either you are being horribly literal or you are purposely being intellectually dishonest. It is obvious that the availability of birth control can and will effect behavior. The fact that one need not worry, in theory, about unplanned pregnancy can obviously increase sex outside of of marriage for a number of reasons. That increased activity , even with the availability of birth control, could very well lead to more single parenthood. Now you can argue that that’s wider behavior and not necessarily linked to birth control, but it would be hard, and dishonest, to dismiss the possibility that wide spread availability and increasing acceptance of birth control may very well play a role in the changing morals in our society. That makes no inbuilt moral judgment. Plenty of other things have also changed and I think for the better, racism, sexism, and many other things are much less accepted. But some things have negative and positive aspects. Acknowledging one doesn’t negate the other.
dm,
I am not accusing Popes of embracing “intentional ignorance” at all. I am simply saying that they are using their reasoning to defend a position which is based in unalterable dogma. Whatever reasoning employed will therefore by necessity conform to that dogma.
With regards to misunderstandings of the “conventions of culture,” I’d remind you once again that Leland was not demanding politicians stop referencing God. He was speaking specifically about politicians who use their religion as a selling point. The phrase “shall not debauch it to such shameful purposes” is illustrative of his culture – or at the very least how he saw it in relevance to the debate at the time.
The push to keep religious institutions and politics came in no small part from evangelicals and members of minority faiths such as Leland’s. He argued passionately against any sort of state established religion (as he did in the sermon from which that quote was taken) and was instrumental in getting Madison into a position where a religious liberty clause would be added to the Bill of Rights.
It is also worth remembering that the “conventions of culture” back in 1802 would have precluded a Catholic like Santorum from getting anywhere near the Presidency. Santorum is able to run today in no small part because of the efforts of religious leaders like Leland.
cjjack, thanks for sharing the extended info.
DM, I’m glad to see you agree with the George Washington quote. As for your judgement about my “projection”, it’s really nothing more than simple observation. Santorum’s fast rise in the polls (to an eventual plateau he can’t rise above) is the result of people who are impressed by his culture warrior creds. He certainly doesn’t appeal to moderates.
I know this may come as a surprise but if Santorum is being “unfairly” judged due to his past quotes and statements maybe he shouldnt have said them. It is not the general publics nor his opponents job to help him properly message. It is his job and his campaigns job to create an image and then be able to communicate and defend it effectively, if he is pro-contraception then I think it is safe to say he is the worst communicator for public office possibly ever and the same can be said if he supports “choice” which again I have seen no evidence of.
What I have seen evidence of is that now that he has a shot at winning an election, even just a primary, he is suddenly interested in moderating a message that he has otherwise felt no need to change in around decade. Soon we will hear how he gives to gay and lesbian causes and hosts drag shows in his free time. He is backtracking plain and simple it is just that his positions tend to be so far off in left field that even the backtrack sounds weird and forced.
Kucinich has his UFO story and Santorum has his creepy lust for far right social/sexual issues…this is why they were always considered fringe candidates that could never be considered a valid option. I know it hurts peoples feelings to be reminded of this reality but it is reality.
Also “political correctness” IS NOT about not making judgements it is about using the terminology that is preferred by a group and avoiding insulting language. When Palin got angry about the use of the word “retard” she was asking for political correctness toward her child and those like him, and in my view was correct in doing so(the politically correct term is Developmentally Disabled generally now is that term such a threat to western civilization that it explains why right wingers hate it so much…no not at all actually). I have seen many right wingers define that term in a myriad of ways that Rush seems to change daily but the reality is rather simple. Instead of using insulting language call people what they prefer to be called because otherwise you look like a jacka** and no one will want to talk to you except for other jacka**s. When the Tea Party DEMANDED that everyone stop calling them teabaggers, which they started and later realized was problematic, they were screaming for political correctness for their benefit. It is not about judgement it is about language choice and trying to be inclusive as opposed to exclusive by making an attempt to not be insulting to entire groups.
Fag becomes Gay with political correctness
Gook becomes Vientamese with political correctness
Ni*** becomes black or african american with political correctness
Can we please please please admit that political correctness is just an intelligent way to communicate to our fellow man that only angered people that were used to calling african americans “boy” and female co-workers “dames” because they thought it was funny regardless of how those around them may have been hurt or upset by it?
Great comments TMSF. Thanks for sharing observations which should be (but often aren’t) common sense.
The Magic, I have not said Santorum is being unfairly judged due to his quotes and opinions. Rather, I have argued that Santorum is being judged according to statements which he has never made, and according to principles in which he has never believed or supported: Santorum’s stated opinions are being misrepresented by smart persons on this blog. I hold persons on this blog to a higher standard.
I’ll restate two examples of Santorum being misrepresented. Santorum is not interested in making law which prevents contraception from being widely available. Second, I have argued that Santorum is not saying The Catholic Church is authoritative, but, rather, is saying here is Catholic doctrine with which I agree, and which I recommend.
I am not arguing the extent to which the Santorum campaign has or has not used good strategy, and I am not arguing the extent to which Obama campaign, and Obama campaign boosters in media and internet, have misrepresented what Santorum actually believes. Rather, I am saying I hold commenters on this blog to a higher standard. You guys are smart enough to refrain from buying into spin from Obama Campaign, NYT, Think Progress, MSNBC, and the Ed Shultz radio show. You guys are smart enough to address what Santorum actually does believe and has said, and to argue against what Santorum has actually argued for. It is beneath you to argue against something which Santorum has never said and has never argued for.
Who has ever said that Santorum is pro contraception or pro choice? He is clearly anti contraception and pro life. Though, he does believe contraception ought be legal and available, as he says in the video I linked near the top. I will guarantee you that Santorum has stated, in no less than 30 speeches/interviews during this campaign, that he believe contraception ought be legal and available. If that has been misreported, the blame resides with media which is only too happy to misreport in order to help Obama, and the blame lies with internet supporters of Obama who are only too happy to pass alone false memes. But, what I am interested in are the commenters in this blog. I hold you guys to a higher standard. Such is a compliment to you.
Hurt feelings?! You imply that my comments are about hurt feelings? Really? THAT is the best way you can reason things out in your mind? Try this simple motivation: stand up for truth, correct untruth. And then things spiraled, inside this comment section, as comments continued to based upon untruths.
Political correctness is more than one thing. It is nice that we use more “gay” and less “fag”.
However, you who support political correctness ought understand the historical record. Political correctness was conceived by communist intellectuals of the Frankfurt School who were driven, by Hitler, from Europe and to America. They asked themselves: why have the workers of the world failed unite as communists? They answered themselves: b/c American freedoms and American economy are so seductive to the workers. How to combat American freedoms and American economy? Answer: undermine confidence in America, in her institutions, in her values. Foment grievances amongst groups: blacks, the poor, et al. Encourage those grievances, via, for instance, “Critical Studies”, which was invented by these communists of the Frankfurt School. And that was the creation of political correctness. And that is simple historical record. There is no conspiracy theory involved, there. There is merely historical record which has been barely reported. The shadow progressive doctrine, that many problems of the world are created by making judgements, also was created by acolytes of the Frankfurt School communists. That doctrine is extremely helpful in promoting the fomenting of grievances amongst groups, and in legitimizing “Critical Studies” as something more than mere quackery.
Ah, guilt by association. So we’re commies now! Got any good Joe McCarthy jokes?
You guys are your own parade of straw men. Did I say you were communists? I did not. Rather, I said you should know the historical record of the political correctness which you espouse.
Political correctness was conceived, by communists of the Frankfurt School, as a strategy to create aggrieved groups (blacks, the poor, et al) who would rise up in ways which would damage confidence in American values and in American culture.
After WWI and WWII, in which the workers of the world did not rise up, but instead dutifully fought in the armies which supported their states, it was clear, to the Frankfurt School communists that the workers of the world would never rise up. Freedom was too seductive. The American economy was too seductive, was like a beacon which called out to workers all over the world. The Frankfurt School communists brainstormed: they needed SOMEBODY who rise up in some way and would pave the way for worldwide communism. What the Frankfurt Schoolers brainstormed, and it was brilliant, was to create and encourage aggrieved groups. The aggrieved groups would rise up, and would undermine confidence in the tenets of American culture. The aggrieved groups would begin the movement which would result in the discrediting of the American way, of the American culture. When America was discredited, and when America suffered some degree of collapse from within, then the world would be primed for the rise of Communism as the natural antidote to America.
Now, that is the historical record of the very foundation of political correctness. The record is not hidden: it is in the open and it is undisputed. It is, also, little reported upon, as media likes political correctness, and has little incentive to research and publicize its origins.
My final point, which was my original point, and was the point which prompted The Magic to originally comment:
The shadow progressive doctrine, i.e. that many problems of the world are created by making judgements, also was created by acolytes of the Frankfurt School communists. The doctrine is extremely helpful in promoting the fomenting of grievances amongst groups, and in legitimizing “Critical Studies”.
What do you think Critical Studies are? They are nothing more than a doctrine of constant criticism of American culture and values. Critical Studies departments offer no solutions: Critical Studies theory expressly recommends AGAINST offering solutions. Rather, they strictly criticize. And, they criticize America. Their entire purpose, from the beginning, was and is to criticize America and to offer no solutions.
DM’s argument has started to take on the tone of Mark Antony’s ‘Bury Caesar’ speech
I sense I ought bring the political correctness thing full circle in this conversation.
There is nothing wrong with Rick Santorum forming and expressing a moral opinion about contraception. It may be bad campaign strategy. We shall see. I suspect it is bad campaign strategy. But there is nothing innately wrongful or hateful about it. Rick Santorum is not insulting anyone. Forming and expressing this moral opinion does not equate to an insult. If it did, then the Catholic Church has been hatefully insulting all of us since 1965.
The only reasoning which supports an argument that Santorum’s opinion is hateful and insulting is reasoning which is founded in the progressive politically correct shadow doctrine that it is wrong to make judgements about the principles and actions of others. That shadow doctrine is hooey. There is nothing wrong with forming moral judgements, either Santorum doing it, or my doing it, or you guys doing it. Intellectual discrimination is a foundation of humanity.
That Frankfurt School must be pretty talented to be able to “create aggrieved groups”!
Though it was probably easier for them to create the poor and a rather difficult task creating those black people.
RB: This is a very good point you are making and why conscientious Catholics never find a party that meshes well with their conscience. Santotum is a nutcase.
I must commend DM on doing a very fine job here. I want to reinforce that any talk whatsoever about justice in any way is about morality. Everyone engaged in the discussion draws upon their belief system whether it is atheist, Christian, or wishy-washy Jeffersonian deism. I hate it when people say “we’re a Christian nation”, but those who claim we are a secular nation are making the same mistake. We are a pluralistic nation.
Catholic bishops might be yearning for centuries old theocracy, but conscientious Catholic voters support pluralism and strive to convince people of good will from all belief systems that many of our moral positions ought to be embraced widely by any society concerned with liberty and justice for all.
DM is having trouble getting people to look a little deeper into these questions because extremists like Santorum make moderate religious folks look bad.
DM: please keep up the good work. I wish I had time to engage more
You are gracious. Thank you.
“Can we please please please admit that political correctness is just an intelligent way to communicate to our fellow man that only angered people that were used to calling african americans “boy” and female co-workers “dames” because they thought it was funny regardless of how those around them may have been hurt or upset by it?”
Yes, yes, yes. And thank you, TMSF, for being one of the very few other people here to express this. Those who whine about having to be politically correct just want an excuse to say any stupid bigoted thing they want without anyone calling them on it. They don’t want to feel the guilt of having said something that intentionally hurts people, and they particularly don’t want to go through the trouble of actually thinking about what they say before they say it, so they whine about the PC culture.
MSF & roro: You make a great point about political correctness. However, you probably wouldn’t argue that PC is never taken too far. But leaving “PC” aside….
The two sides on this issue talk past each other: “It’s my body and my health care” vs. “I want my religious freedom”.
Stubbornly discussing the issue from only one side is, at best, tiresome.