Do you go to church and/or read a bible? If you do, but don’t necessarily believe what is said during the services or what you read on the pages, you may be in good shape. In fact, if you want a future in politics, going to church for the sake of appearances may be electorally expedient. On the other hand, if you have strong religious convictions which you do not care to hide, you better avoid running for office… at least a national office.
If you are a person with a strong faith and a mind to be involved in civic activities, you sir, are a potential theocrat! You should have the common sense to at least shroud your beliefs from public view. If you do not, if you dare offer honest responses to questions, well… you must be crazy enough to want to impose your beliefs on the largest number of people you can. You must be kept from high office, as a theocracy would result from your election.
Sound ridiculous? Of course, it does. In politics, the ridiculous can become the mainstream. If you don’t believe so, I offer the following as evidence: Barack Obama won the presidency. Still don’t believe it? The Republicans are going to nominate the father of Obamacare to oppose Obama in what they portray as the most crucial election of our history… at least until 2016, when we have the next most critical election in our history. Perhaps there is crazy genius at work in the selection of Mitt Romney to lead the Republican ticket. Republicans and those who oppose Obama are expected to vote for whoever the Republicans nominate, so they can be dismissed. The genius is that Romney can appeal to some of those who like Obamacare… and are maybe mad at Obama for some other reason? Regardless, it is genius.
This isn’t really about Romney or his flipping and flopping like a slippery fish out of water on socialized medicine. Nor is the attack on faith only being waged by the left and Obama’s HHS. It is true that the HHS mandate is imposing the force of the federal government in areas it does not belong. The assault on faith through the birth control mandate is a high profile attack (apparently so high profile that it overshadows the complete violation of liberty that is the health insurance mandate). Obama, Sebelius, and the rest of the progressive statists represent only one front in the war on faith. In fact, I believe that many Republican elitists who are taking issue with infringement on religious freedom associated with the mandate, only take issue as a matter of political convenience.
The other assaults do not come from those who have the power of the regulatory mechanism at their disposal. There are Republicans and Libertarians who are employing all available tactics to combat the possibility of a openly religious man gaining the Republican nomination for President. Whether they be supporters of Ron Paul or Mitt Romney, many have decided to twist Rick Santorum’s lack of hiding his beliefs into a threat of theocracy.
On the radio, Neal Boortz has referred to Santorum as a theocrat and suggested that it would be a stupid move to nominate him to face Obama. On Sirius-XM Patriot, morning show host, Mike Church, has been referring to “St. Rick of Tarsus.” I don’t know if Boortz has a horse in the race, as I seldom have the opportunity to catch his show. Church, on the other hand, might as well be the official satellite radio show of the Ron Paul campaign. An example of Mike Church’s commentary along with an unflattering photo of Santorum taking a bite of an ice cream cone can be found at, “St. Rick’s Vigorous Porn Crackdown – Mike Church Show Exclusive Audio.”
If the enforcement of the laws are a problem, maybe, just maybe the laws in question should be repealed. If there are laws banning the distribution of hardcore porn, and the enforcement of those laws are offensive, are the enforcement of other laws equally offensive? Most likely the only offensive enforcement occurs when the laws are not liked by a faction. If there aren’t laws pertaining to the distribution, then Santorum would be acting outside his constitutional bounds. Is this the concern? If this is the concern, do the warriors against faith believe that Santorum is the only candidate who might overstep his enumerated powers if elected?
Twitter, Facebook, and the blogosphere are fertile grounds for claims that Santorum is, or would be, a theocrat. Those who make such suggestions are likely some of the same commentators who dishonestly proclaim , “Santorum suggests Obama preferable over ‘Etch A Sketch’ Romney” when anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty (and who heard or read his actual words) knows that is not what he said.
I don’t believe any candidate will be truly faithful to the limits of his office placed there by the law of the land. No, not even Ron Paul. I also don’t believe that even if Santorum were President and used the bully pulpit to espouse the values consistent with his faith (values that once upon a time were indeed mainstream American values), this could be construed as a fledgling theocracy. Would he rule by executive order? Would Catholicism be installed as the official religion of the United States of America? Would we become the United Catholic States of America? Would the first amendment be ignored completely?
I suppose that presidents have been ignoring their boundaries for so long and the actions of the current wannabe dictator are so egregious, that the previously posed questions aren’t as ridiculous as they should otherwise seem. Some have said we might as well be called the United Socialist States of America. Of course, the first amendment is the equivalent of toilet paper to those currently in power. Maybe there is a connection between the societal condition that has allowed a once great nation to devolve to a point where our country is embracing socialism and the opposition of a person of strong faith in something other than the state as a potentially dangerous theocrat.