Newt and Mitt: Irony Sharpens Irony »« NOM Continues to Conflate Homosexuality and Pedophilia

Santorum’s Christian Sharia Plan

Dean Obeidallah writes at CNN about Rick Santorum’s repeated insistence that America should enforce the Bible’s civil and criminal code, at least when he deems it necessary. He correctly asks what the difference is between Santorum’s views and Sharia law.

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.

Santorum is not hiding this. The only reason you may not be aware of it is because up until his recent surge in the polls, the media were ignoring him. However, “Santorum Two” was out there telling anyone who would listen.

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.”

Some of you might be asking: How far will “Santorum Two” take this? It’s not like he’s going to base public policy decisions on Bible passages, right?

Well, here’s what Santorum had to say just last week when asked about his opposition to gay marriage: “We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. … And those truths don’t change just because people’s attitudes may change.”

Santorum could not be more unambiguous: His policy decisions will be based on “biblical truths,” and as he noted, these “truths” will not change regardless of whether public opinion has evolved since the time the Bible was written thousands of years ago.

Imagine if either of the two Muslim members of Congress declared their support for a proposed American law based on verses from the Quran. The outcry would be deafening, especially from people like Santorum.

One of the great ironies is that Santorum has been a leader in sounding alarm bells that Muslims want to impose Islamic law — called Sharia law — upon non-Muslims in America. While Santorum fails to offer even a scintilla of credible evidence to support this claim, he continually warns about the “creeping” influence of Muslim law.

Santorum’s fundamental problem with Sharia law is that it’s “not just a religious code. It is also a governmental code. It happens to be both religious in nature and origin, but it is a civil code.”

Consequently, under the Sharia system, the civil laws of the land must comport with God’s law. Now, where did I hear about someone wanting to impose only laws that agree with God’s law in America?

I can imagine the obvious and trite response: “But Sharia law includes things like beheading and stoning.” Well yes, some versions of it do. And some versions of Biblical law do as well, and they are well supported by the Bible in doing so. But the fundamental point is that if you cannot justify the policies you espouse on rational grounds, if you can only justify them by reference to your religious doctrine, then you have not justified them at all. A free society demands nothing less.

Comments

  1. Phillip IV says

    Santorum’s Christian Sharia Plan

    Frankly, I doubt that there’s anything in Santorum’s worldview which even just approaches coherency and consistency closely enough to technically qualify as a plan or agenda.

    Let’s better call it Santorum’s Christian Sharia dream/fetish/obsession or something like that.

  2. peterh says

    That he’s stupid enough to say such things bothers me. That he’s smart enough to realize some folks will take him seriously scares me.

  3. Pierce R. Butler says

    Phillip IV @ # 1: Let’s better call it Santorum’s Christian Sharia dream/fetish/obsession or something like that.

    Shariantorum: a frothy mix indeed.

  4. Michael Heath says

    Santorum’s advocacy is not unprecedented. Sen. Santorum’s predominant demographic target is conservative Christians, as was Mike Huckabee’s in the 2008 GOP primary race. Gov. Huckabee also campaigned on making his interpretation of the Bible the supreme law of the land rather than the U.S. Constitution. This is an incredibly radical plank to promote in one’s presidential platform yet the media is too stupid and cowardly to sufficiently address this issue.

    As usual we also observe psychological projection in the target group though I don’t see it from Sen. Santorum himself (perhaps I’m not paying close attention). That being conservative Christians are easily the biggest group who seeks to subvert the core principles in the U.S. Constitution while simultaneously claiming they are its most loyal devotees.

  5. MikeMa says

    Iowa sent him out with a tie for first. Iowa also selected Huckabee last cycle. The Iowa GOP has some splainin to do I think.

    The changes that the christian sharia folks want are not typically the kind of thing you propose and pass through the house & senate. They are constitutional amendment types of changes. Santorum (or Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Palin & Newt), while espousing those christian sharia views, would have little chance of getting 2/3rds of anything to pass them so the purpose must be to make sure people know just how piously religious they are. Santorum takes this far beyond its logical conclusion. His christian faith makes him look foolish often and sometimes insane. The GOP base which demands such insanity should condemn the entire party to obscurity. I’m not holding my breath.

  6. says

    I wouldn’t worry too much about Santorum unless he garners rapidly increasing support as the primaries roll on.

    After all, despite the Tea Party’s efforts, only 5.4% of voters in Iowa bothered to vote in the caucus, and he got less than one fourth of that.

    I believe the media is using him for reasons of amusement.

  7. John Hinkle says

    “We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. … And those truths don’t change just because people’s attitudes may change.”

    So, about those mixed fiber textiles…

  8. d cwilson says

    I so wish someone in the media had the balls to confront Santorum about the disconnect between his belief in Biblical law vs. his stoking the fears of “creeping” Sharia law. He’ll probably say something along the lines of, “When Sharia talks about stoning gays/witches/adulterers, that’s based on primitive superstitions, but when the Bible talks about stoning gays/witches/adulterers, that’s based on God’s revealed truth.”

    At least if he said that, we’d have his idiocy out loud and in the public discourse.

  9. D. C. Sessions says

    But the one thing you will never, ever catch our so-called “fourth estate” asking him is this:

    Mr. Santorum: aside from fine points of theology, how do you differ from the Taliban or mullahs of Iran?

  10. interrobang says

    “When Sharia talks about stoning gays/witches/adulterers, that’s based on primitive superstitions, but when the Bible talks about stoning gays/witches/adulterers, that’s based on God’s revealed truth.”

    Man, could someone with a little background ever hammer him on that. I’d really have fun with it: “You realise, don’t you, that Islam considers Jesus Christ to be one of God’s prophets?”

    “Abba…whubbu…huh, NO, that’s wrong!”

    “No, see, look, it says right here in the Qu’ran… Basically, you’re just the same as the Taliban, except that you might be able to tolerate the sight of a woman in a bikini.”

    This kind of thing is why I, frankly, don’t consider radical Islam to be the biggest existential threat to civilisation. (Frankly, think such rhetoric is vastly overblown, since decades after the last such alleged existential threat — Communism — utterly failed in any way to “destroy civilisation,” I’m kinda tired of fear junkies constantly looking for and hyping new ones.)

    The US swings much more weight in my daily (non-American) life, and Dominionists are much scarier precisely because they’re Christians and in a majority-Christian culture with its inherent and carefully-nurtured Christian privilege, nobody will call them on their bullshit (until it’s vastly too late).

  11. parasiteboy says

    But the fundamental point is that if you cannot justify the policies you espouse on rational grounds, if you can only justify them by reference to your religious doctrine, then you have not justified them at all.

    I have started using this same type of argument when discussing issues with family and friends of the christian faith.

    I also tend to point out the need for intellectual consistency (homosexuality is bad, but eating shellfish and pork is ok, even though the bible says that they are all a sin in the section) and there are parts of their religious doctrine that contradicted each other (old vs. new testament).

  12. raven says

    “We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. … And those truths don’t change just because people’s attitudes may change.”

    Actually religions evolve rapidly and so do their gods. Ironic, since some xians hate that word so much. Anyone following an OT lifestyle today would be doing multiple life sentences in prison.

    We no longer follow the vast majority of the 613 laws of the OT, including eating pork, eating shellfish, getting tattoos, wearing jewelry, and touching women who might be “unclean” whatever the hell that means.

    Few people believe the earth is flat or the stars are just lights stuck on a dome anymore.

    It’s illegal to stone disobedient children to death or sell your kids as sex slaves. It’s even illegal to own slaves.

    The bible is a Rorschach ink blot. Xians pull out whatever they want and ignore the vast majority. A sockpuppet morality just like their sockpuppet gods.

  13. Larry says

    I also tend to point out the need for intellectual consistency (homosexuality is bad, but eating shellfish and pork is ok,

    That’s because passages in the bible are allegorical.

    Except when they’re not.

  14. raven says

    Xian Dominionists have no problem with how they will enforce biblical law.

    They aren’t planning to have a democracy for long.

    Dominionism explicity hates the US, the US government, and they want to set up a theocracy and head on back to the Dark Ages.

    According to the NT part of xian Sharia, jesus is lord, the ruler over all, and anyone who doesn’t follow jesus’s orders will be killed. Jesus hasn’t showed up in a long time but that is no problem. His self selected regents on earth will do the ruling for him. And however many people they have to murder to enforce it.

    Satanorum is a Catholic Fascist. His oogedy boogedy primitive Catholicism isn’t consistent with American values, the Enlightenment, the vast majority of modern Catholics, and above all with democracy.

  15. gregbrouelette says

    Once again we have a Republican candidate who is completely ignorant of the Lemon test from Lemon v. Kurtzman.

    Or maybe they are familiar with it but they just don’t care. For so many of them the Constitution is a wonderful document right up to the point where they have to treat people they disagree with equally.

    Or the Constitution is a wonderful document right up until it gets hard like when we can’t wiretap citizens without a warrant. When will they get it through their thick heads that this country works because of the Constitution, not in spite of it.

    The great irony, of course, is that it’s the Republicans who keep claiming that it’s progressives who don’t know what’s in the Constitution.

  16. raven says

    Once again we have a Republican candidate who is completely ignorant of the Lemon test from Lemon v. Kurtzman.

    Satanorum is a practicing lawyer.

    He knows. He just doesn’t care.

    The xian Dominionists have no intention of worrying about the US constitution. It is after all not only not in the bible but contradicts the bible a lot.

    They have differing solutions to that little problem. Newt Gingrich just wants to arrest US judges that don’t rule the way he wants. Arrest a few, put them against a wall, and shoot them. Problem solved.

  17. raven says

    bcseweb.org Rushdooney:

    Our list may not be perfect but it seems to cover those “crimes” against the family that are inferred by Rushdoony’s statement to Moyers. The real frightening side of it is the interpretation of heresy, apostasy and idolatry. Rushdoony’s position seems to suggest that he would have anyone killed who disagreed with his religious opinions. That represents all but a tiny minority of people. Add to that death penalties for what is quite legal, blasphemy, not getting on with parents and working on a Sunday means that it the fantasy ideal world of Rushdoony and his pals, there will be an awful lot of mass murderers and amongst a tiny population.

    We have done figures for the UK which suggest that around 99% of the population would end up dead and the remainder would have each, on average, killed 500 fellow citizens.

    Chalcedon foundation bsceweb.org. Stoning disobedient children to death.Contempt for Parental Authority:

    It’s estimated that under biblical law, 99% of the US population, 297 million people, will end up stoned to death by the other 1%.

    Satanorum and the xian Dominionists are mass murder wannabees on a scale the world hasn’t seen since god invented genocide with the Big Boat event. Oh well, at least they are following a precedent.

  18. arakasi says

    I know that slavery has been illegal in this country for almost 150 years, but you have to remember:
    “We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. … And those truths don’t change just because people’s attitudes may change.”

  19. exdrone says

    Well, in participating in the last debate, Santorum worked on the Sabbath, so unless he has recently turned himself in for summary execution, he is just another candidate who won’t live up to his platform promises.

  20. stace says

    So I’m thinking it’s just a matter of time before one of these sanctimonious d-bags becomes President and we’re executing adulterers in football stadiums, just like they do in Afghanistan. Woo hoo, yay for the American Taliban!

Leave a Reply