Who Is the Radical Here?

From the New York Times:

The forces rearranging the family are as diverse as globalization and the pill.

But Rick Santorum is supposedly radically on the margins of society for ever expressing his view that it has done harm to women and men and the family?

We are told that the Right has forced a debate on contraception, when it is the media-aided White House and Democratic party (thank you for Democrats like Dan Lipinski in the House and Ben Nelson in the Senate who are fighting against it) that has forced this issue by telling the Catholic Church its teachings on sexual morality are not welcome in America. The government knows best, and you will submit or be penalized.

The irony, of course, is that President Rick Santorum would not approach the government that way. What is the outrageous view he expressed, according to his critics? As president, he would talk about the downsides of contraception. TALK. Not legislate. Not mandate. Simply use his soapbox to try to persuade a time or again, perhaps. How radical. He would continue to share his views when appropriate.

As the Obama administration tells us we can’t actually believe what we say we do, not operationally, not outside of the fall walls of a church on Sundays. Who exactly is the radical here?



  • Doyl

    Well said Kathryn, Del, Kevin & Brian

    I keep hearing the pundits and Liberal bloggers – wearing a “conservative” website for clothing – making the argument that a Social conservaitve like Rick Santorum would FORCE Morality and that you “Cant Legislate Morality”.

    First, as you pointed out, He has NO INTENTION of forcing anyone to do what is right, the goal is to persuade people to WANT to do right. To Rule by arrogant, unrestrained, infelxible, brute force would be immoral. AND Rick Santorum being a man of the WORD knows that God holds leaders more accountable than others.

    Second, if you cant legislate morality, then what do the laws agianst theft, rape, murder, homosexuality, and fraud do?!? They Legislate morality. The same detractors whine that they dont want a Theocracy. A True Theocracy has a god as its KING. Ancient Israel was Led by Prophets, priests, and judges and then refusing to have God as their King, they insisted on having a Human King. The result was, as God warned it would be, that the Kings were oppressive, and rewarded themselves with the peoples resources. This is ALWAYS the result when people RULE OVER others. But America was set up as a Free Representative Republic, wherein “We the PEOPLE” are the king [Under God]. We tell our Public Servants what we want, and we use the Constitution to keep them in line, to keep them from abusing their position or oppressing us. It helps to KEEP honest men honest.

  • Del

    Obama got elected because “Hope & Change” sounded a lot like “I’ll give you free stuff” to enough voters.

    Obama’s new campaign is “I’ll give you free contraception” — and people are thick enough to fall for it. Our health insurance premiums will increase, and we’ll all end up paying more than if we had just bought our own contraception (that is, if we wanted it). But hey… Obama promised “free contraception.”

    What I don’t understand is this — since when did liberals start applauding “goverment mandates”? I thought they hated petty dictators telling us how to live.

  • Kelly


    • Kelly

      Oh my goodness. A one word comment and I spell it wrong.

  • Kevin Doherty

    Precisely! The HHS mandate is about religious liberty, and not contraception, sterilizations, or abortion drugs. The 1st Amendment is meant to protect religions from government intervention, not to protect the government from its people’s religious views. The HHS appears to be establishing what they believe should be the conscience of all Americans – that contraception, sterilizations, and abortion drugs should be free “preventive” services under the national health care plan. This is simply not right, and stands in direct conflict with the 1st amendment, which clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

  • PaulBenCatholic

    As long as the voters are uninformed -thanks to laziness and taking freedom for granted- then the media and the politicians can play with them and drag them to whatever they want them to believe and vote for. This guy America has in the White House is the first person to be elected according to skin color, it was well plotted and he will be re-chosen because Americans -the majority of them- are cowards. They are afraid to be called “racists” if they don’t re-chose a black as they reelected Whites. Thank you media!

    • Brian

      No, people voted for Obama because they sincerely believed that he would be the more competent governor. They were not brainwashed to VOTE FOR THE BLACK MAN OR ELSE. He was voted according to what the voters thought were his qualifications, NOT his skin color. Whether he has governed properly can be argued.

      • MikeM

        Brian, what did they think were his qualifications? I don’t think that race had much to do with it for most people, but it surely wasn’t his long record of accomplishments.

      • PaulBenCatholic

        My apologies! You are right! I don’t know how I missed that point!

        • PaulBenCatholic

          My previous reply/comment was addressed to Brian, by the way. I should have made it clear. Sorry about that. Yes, this “president” was chosen because of his “qualifications”…I’m speechless!! I know a lot of people who will re-chose him for the SAME “qualifications!!!!!”



Receive our updates via email.