.
Yes he does.
Posted on 01/19/2012 9:18:41 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I mean, really. How dare you peasants tell the government what to do? How dare you tell them to stay out of your lives? Santorum 2012!
(VIDEO AT LINK)
"One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right.
They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.
That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”
- Rick Santorum
First off, the phrase “radical individualism” is something I expect to hear from a Saudi imam. Hell, I wouldn’t be too surprised to hear it from leftists in this country. When I hear it from a Republican candidate for president, I sit blinking for a couple of minutes and then curl up in a ball under my desk, crying softly.
Secondly, I have to wonder: is Santorum insane, or even more out of touch with his base than any of the other candidates? This guy has the balls to whine about people wanting the government to leave them alone? Um, Ricky, I’m pretty sure the top issue for most conservatives is government overreach. There’s this thing called ObamaCare. Heard of it?
However, the true Emmy award winner of this piece is when he disputes the notion that “government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low”. You’re absolutely right, bud. I hope you get up on a podium tonight and deliver, in that notoriously whiny timbre of yours, admonishment to all those non-traditional conservatives who won’t shut up about lower taxes and less regulation. See how that flies in South Carolina. Rick Santorum is a statist theocrat. I’ve said it before, and been challenged on it. I consider this quote to be a follow up to this endlessly disturbing piece from nine years ago. Rick Santorum’s agenda involves using government power to enforce his morality on the American people, based not on political or constitutional ideals, but on his religious views. He is as far removed from the Tea Party, and the concept of small-government conservatism, as Barack Obama.
But lucky us! We can also choose from a socialist who provided the blueprint for ObamaCare, a serial cheater and liar with an ego the size of Neptune, or an isolationist crank who wouldn’t have stopped the Holocaust if it were occurring in present day. Johnnie Walker is my co-pilot.
“If the Constitution was written to detail the right of enforcers to control the lives and morals of it’s subjects, then burn it and piss on the ashes.”
Obama finds the constitution inconvenient. So go ahead and burn it and see if you are freer after than before.
“I hold to the stubborn belief that morality at the point of a gun wasn’t quite what the Founders had in mind.”
Do you believe that morals are universal?
What defines a natural right?
/johnny
Time for you to read it again...
Amendment XThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Right, the freedom to give one's self over to Christ is not to be found in a government which has decided that freedom of religion=freedom from religion.
So, self autonomy is not the goal, but a necessary foundation, (conversions at gunpoint don't count, do they?)
The carefully crafted statements in the Bill of Rights were there to allow people to live their lives as free of government intervention as possible.
Morality, largely based upon religion, remains a matter of choice, regardless. We have (had?) a system of government, which when populated by moral individuals, safeguarded the rights of the individual, meddled little in their affairs as was absolutely necessary.
As you said, 'how far we have slid' can only be measured in the distortion of that system to the point where our Government would have domain over our thoughts, expressions, diet, and medicaments, not to mention armaments, to the degree we are so constrained as to not have choice. When we said the Lord's Prayer in school every moring, youwere free to not say it if you chose, and many Catholics left off the last part (even though we agreed in principle with His being the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory for ever and ever) because that just wasn't the way we had been taught to say the prayer.
Those who grew up to embrace immorality, Buddhism, Shinto, whatever, made their choices, as did those of us who chose to follow Jesus, who like the lesser Lairds, swore our fealty in all things to Our Saviour and King of Kings. (God first, then Country, then others, then self--which worked when most everyone felt the same way.)
Recall that the power of government, whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed comes from the choice of those who follow it, and that each soverign individual must possess that power in order to grant it to any governmental entity, otherwise, it is the other way around, with government tossing them the table scraps of its soverignty over them.
For this reason, at least back when I had Civics class, the People were at the top of the food chain, and government was considered subservient to them.
The founders would agree, that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, ate reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The power belongs to the people, ultimately to each individual, who can, as they choose, delegate it, or surrender it, be it to God or otherwise.
When the Government dictates against our will that we cannot mention religion in publicly funded schools, they have effectively prohibited the free exercise thereof, and as such limited the available choices--especially considering the secular humanist onslaught in the curricula of today.
If one is holding up autonomy as an end in itself, I'd agree, but it is only a means to an end, the freedom to choose to live well.
Those who would not, in the words of the Bard, 'Would not serve God if the Devil bid them'.
What are morals? Who defines them?
And before you say the Bible... people interpret that differently. We all see through a glass darkly.
It would be prideful to assert that my view was the only possible correct one, because I am human, and fail.
So, pridefully assert what is moral and not.
/johnny
The DOI is merely a formal explanation of the colonies’ rebellion, and not a founding legal document of the USA. The phrase in the DOI:
“that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Is a statement of a Moral of Standard, but it is not a Legal Standard.
The Constitution is the founding document and it does indeed enumerate rights of the people and the states while limiting the powers of the federal government to those only enumerated in the Constitution.
The 9th amendment reads:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Could write a book on just that question.
From the English Bill of Rights
Life - Right to life.
Liberty - Freedom of Speech(+press), Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association, Freedom of movement, Judicial freedoms (petition + trial by jury + independent judiciary+ search + seizure + Habeaus Corpus), electoral freedoms (representation)
Pursuit of Happiness - Private Property.
That’s a pretty good list of them.
Which is what I said.
Powers not explicitly enumerated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
The power to regulate goods crossing the federal border is an enumerated power of the federal government. Ergo the 10th can’t touch it.
“So, pridefully assert what is moral and not.”
As I suspected you are a moral relativist. Thanks for answering.
“Santorum is spot on here. American culture was never about personal autonomy or ‘self rule’. It was about personal responsibility - the obligation of the individual to look after - not just himself, but his family.”
I agree with this.
I’d would say that individualism is an ideal of American society but all of us, with the exception of Libertarians, realize that the ideal is not possible. That is at least after we have a job. We all depend on some group of people, customers, employers, family, friends, etc.
In Britain, government grants rights to subjects.
In the US, free people grant powers to governments.
Anything not explicitly enumerated is left to the people, or the States.
/johnny
If I understand him correctly, this is what Mark Levin maintains. Frankly, I don’t see how it can be any other way. IMO, this is one of the areas where libertarians get it wrong. It seems that it never occurs to them that these two documents must be taken as a unit, and the Declaration is the document they want to forget.
One of the things I admire about Santorum is that he gives not only a plan, but also the philosphical and Constitutional reasons for the plan, and why the plan will work. He gives so much more than the usual candidate. I find his talks exciting because his message is congruent with America’s foundation, which resonates in our own time in the spirit of Reagan.
We don need no stinkin purity test! Conservatives can quickly recognize what Santorum is offering. So many people are not used to seeing the face of a joyful man who presents himself, as well as his faith and thought, to the world “without wax.”
I’m just lurking’ on this thread, but I gotta tell you guys, this is the best example of why I love FreeRepublic I’ve seen in a while. I’m not joining in ‘cause my position is already ably represented. And besides I have to get to bed soon. But I sincerely thank you all, whether I agree with you or not, for some really good repartee. ‘Night!
I know in my heart what is right, and what is wrong. And it's aboslute.
I refuse to impose that belief on anyone else as law. Because I'm a human.
I'll leave it God to enforce his laws. Since I'm biblically required to.
/johnny
The Founding Fathers and Congress profoundly disagree with you...
The constitutional and legal status of the Declaration of Independence is curiously ambiguous. John Hancock (in his capacity as president of the Second Continental Congress) and James Madison both considered it to be, in Madison's words, “the fundamental Act of Union of these States.” Reflecting that view, Congress has placed it at the head of the United States Code, under the caption, “The Organic Laws of the United States of America.” The Supreme Court has infrequently accorded it binding legal force, for example, in resolving questions of alienage (Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbour, 1830).
The Constitution is the founding document and it does indeed enumerate rights of the people and the states while limiting the powers of the federal government to those only enumerated in the Constitution.
Yes, it enumerates some rights but I said it "does not give any rights."
The 9th amendment reads: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Yes, that is what it says which does not in any way contradict what I said. In fact all of the first ten amendments, including the 9th, do describe limitations on the Federal government's powers.
.
Yes he does.
Morality is found within the Natural Law, which is knowable through reason, and upon which America was founded.
No, you said the exact opposite.
Enumerated powers to the federal government are not touched. The 10th reserves powers not enumerated to the states.
“If one is holding up autonomy as an end in itself, I’d agree, but it is only a means to an end, the freedom to choose to live well.”
Ahh, a Kantian. Yes and no. Yes, it is bad as an end to itself. As a means - it’s not really a means. You can’t get to God through yourself. You have to discard it altogether.
You have to overcome self to get to God.
“Without the freedom to give one’s self to Christ, there can be no giving.”
But without God giving us free will, we can’t have a concept of a self in the first place! Our free will is a gift, we don’t will ourselves. We don’t make it, it just is.
“That is the ‘sacrifice’ we make back, but to protect the Right to choose is paramount to the ability to make that choice.”
Absolutely.
“The Right, the freedom to give one’s self over to Christ is not to be found in a government which has decided that freedom of religion=freedom from religion.”
And that’s the problem with carrying autonomy too far - if it is the primary good, then to not be autonomous is hurting the overall good. It’s a utilitarian, not a deontological argument.
“So, self autonomy is not the goal, but a necessary foundation”
Well, it’s like discovering there’s a whole basement below what you thought was the real foundation, and finding the actual foundation by punching through autonomy.
“The carefully crafted statements in the Bill of Rights were there to allow people to live their lives as free of government intervention as possible.”
Absolutely. Santorum’s not arguing against this. He’s actually arguing that autonomy, in this absolute sense, actually works against the constitution. Because if the constitution isn’t binding you - look at Obama, you can do so much harm to other people.
“Morality, largely based upon religion, remains a matter of choice, regardless. We have (had?) a system of government, which when populated by moral individuals, safeguarded the rights of the individual, meddled little in their affairs as was absolutely necessary.”
Based on the understanding that rights come from God, not from ourselves. If rights come from us, then that justifies intervention, because if we don’t act, then people are going to lose their rights. Rights coming from God implies that even if we do nothing, people will be free.
This is the POV that we are fighting. The DOO SOMETHING folks that don’t understand this.
“When we said the Lord’s Prayer in school every moring, you were free to not say it if you chose, and many Catholics left off the last part (even though we agreed in principle with His being the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory for ever and ever) because that just wasn’t the way we had been taught to say the prayer.”
Or when I have prayer in every single class that I teach. It’s not forced. We have a simple prayer and a blessing, and then everyone takes off.
“(God first, then Country, then others, then self—which worked when most everyone felt the same way.)”
Yes, you get it. That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Thank you sir.
“For this reason, at least back when I had Civics class, the People were at the top of the food chain, and government was considered subservient to them.”
Still are. That’s the thing about Natural rights, is that even if the government deprives you of them, they still exist. They can’t take them away.
“The power belongs to the people, ultimately to each individual, who can, as they choose, delegate it, or surrender it, be it to God or otherwise.”
But as you said, these rights come from God. We did not make them, we did not bring them about. They would exist even if we deny that they exist.
“When the Government dictates against our will that we cannot mention religion in publicly funded schools, they have effectively prohibited the free exercise thereof, and as such limited the available choices—especially considering the secular humanist onslaught in the curricula of today.”
What’s happening is that people are arguing that this is protecting autonomy - freedom to be free FROM religion. This is the problem. Rather then act and permit people to conduct themselves according to their faith, autonomy argues that this is bad, and must be stopped in order that their autonomy might be preserved.
They see it like committing suicide and in a way it is. You are dead to the self and alive in Christ. Just like you would prevent someone from killing themselves, you try to protect them from religion.
So what does Rick Santorum or any other government official have to do with that?
You wrote a long response that went around and around and didn't even touch on what Santorum said and how I responded to it.
Ever hear, GRANTED BY THEIR CREATOR
And where, exactly, does the GOVERNMENT get off coming between me and "MY CREATOR" (which covers all belief systems, whether folks like you like to believe it or not--otherwise it would say specifically the Christian God).
*sigh* is right--you have backtracked yourself into saying Rick Santorum is right in saying the government has a responsibility to determine how *I* am behaving according to HIS idea of the creator--please show me where THAT is in the Constitution.
Your response to me completely contradicts what you said before. Typical of the shifting belief systems going on around here when people bend their standards to conform to some politician they like.
Give me LIBERTY, not this cult of personality baloney.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.