 |
||||||||
|
4/24/2003 06:46:00 PM | Timothy Andrew Sullivan on Santorum It's hard to find the right analogy, but it's not that far from saying that you have nothing against Jews, as long as they go to Church each Sunday. (Which was, of course, the Catholic position for a very long time.) Worse actually. It's like saying that, even if Jews practised their religion at home, in private, they could still be arrested for undermining the social order. Their very persistence in their identity - which harms and could harm no-one else - is a threat. Do you think someone who said that would remain a leading pillar of the Republican Party? Andrewsullivan.com has a lot of other good stuff on it. But I emphasized the last sentence because this example (whether or not you think this example is analogous to Santorum's statements) shows that we do have things we consider legitimate in our public discourse. I bring this up because some of the commentators on my last post thought I was being dangerous by merely noting the obvious, that simply having a position that is the same as a religious position should not innoculate you from criticism that your view is or should be beyond the pale in politics. Now, it can be dangerous to say that certain views are illegitimate, but it is not itself inheritantly dangerous (the point, if made absolutely as it seemed to be in the comments, is absurd: it cannot be more dangerous for a blogger to criticize a politician's views as out of bounds than for that politician with the power to affect people's lives to enact any view, even trampling people's rights.) Segregationalism is now considered out of bounds for politicians to advocate and that is very important for the progress of our democracy. Now you can make the argument that if a large number of people think something, the stability of the polity depends on their views being representated. (I don't think Emmett 'I love Mill' Hogan would want to say that majoritarianism should always trump rights, though.) But is it true that a lot of people agree with Santorum? NO, IT IS NOT. Or at least, no more than those who agreed with Trent Lott (and by that I mean what conservatives and liberals accused him of meaning). Of course, a lot of people think homosexual sex is perverted, but it often is not grounded in religious doctrine, or if it is, it is selective outrage and a narrow reading of what 'sodomy' means. I would say that relatively few people think that the state should ban contraceptives, make illegal adultry, ban sex before marriage, as well as make sodomy illegal. Santorum seems to be one of those people, and I think Emmett may be right that he can defend that from a traditional Catholic prospective (or another Christian perspective). But with so many people not practising what they preach, as well as not being willing to tolerate laws that would punish their errancy, it would selective to only enforce such laws on homosexuals, and it would not born of a legitimate religious position to claim that the Bible's views on sex should only be applied to them. In other words, most of the 'we' that Santorum speaks of voting to apply these laws would not want them to be enforced upon themselves and frankly would not put up with laws that consistently applied, though coercive law, a perspective said to be Santorum's. By the way, I do not think Emmett on dartlog is right to say that conservatives should have resisted the Trent Lott affair. I think there are interesting, and sometimes differing, issues in both of these cases. I mean, aren't conservatives the one always claiming that it is different to discriminate on the basis of race than on the basis of sexual orientation? Plus, Lott's comments really could only mean one thing, and it harkened back to an ugly, vile past. No one, and I mean no one, doubts that what Santorum says is very much in the present of the Republican Party. As a political matter, 'bigotry' and 'intolerance' will keep being a watchword. Whether this helps or hurts the Republicans will depend in part on how Americans see the morality of sexual practices and whether they are willing to tolerate and accept them. So strangely Emmett and I in part agree: it can be seen as a moral issue. I see nothing immoral about homosexuality and no reason to prohibit it. But unless I hear arguments otherwise, if you don't go the whole hog and buy into traditional doctrine about everything relating to sex, it is just hypocrisy and pretty much should be an illegitimate perspective. What I am shocked about is that people are speaking out against Santorum, signalling that we are moving closer to a time when that perspective is actually considered illegitimate to the extent that a major party would be embarrassed to have a leader who held those views. We are no where near there yet. perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP  |
|||||||
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.