Rick Santorum's Religious Hypocrisy

One of the few commendable opinions Rick Santorum has expressed this campaign is his criticism of Iran’s religious legal system. Santorum is entirely justified in criticizing Iran for imposing Islamic shariah law on its people. However, Santorum is both wrong and hypocritical for attempting to do the same with Christianity in America.

During the August 11th debate in Iowa, Santorum criticized Iran for “trampling on the rights of women [and] … gays”. However, it is unclear why Santorum is upset about this unless he wants a monopoly on it. Santorum cites Christian law for his opposition gay marriage, contraception, and abortion. Isn’t this combining religion and government? Yes, Santorum is doing the exact same thing he is accusing Iran of. It is no more acceptable with Christianity than it is with Islam.

Nobody is forcing Santorum to become a homosexual or use contraception. Any efforts to do so would be forcibly imposing one’s morals on another. As Santorum says about Iran, this is wrong. However, if a Santorum administration prevents loving same-sex couples from marrying or outlaws abortion, this would be imposing religious moral law on a secular nation.

While Santorum’s comments on Iran are commendable, he should take the same position with his own policy and not impose religious law on everybody in America. Just because Santorum is a religious Catholic doesn’t mean that everybody in America is. Imposing Biblical Law on an entire nation is just as wrong as doing the same thing with shariah law. If Santorum is to be taken seriously, he needs to hold his policies to the same standards as other countries’. If not, we will soon be executing virgin women who do not cry out upon being raped.

New Letter to the Editor in Daily Campus: "Santorum No Hero"

Yesterday, I had a letter published in UConn's newspaper, The Daily Campus. You can view it here or below. For reference, the original article I responded to is here. 

Santorum is No Hero

John Nitkowski claims Rick Santorum is "not really a bad guy" and claims evidence of his homophobia was "taken out of context." However, that is hardly the case. Nitkowski cites a quote from Santorum saying he "doesn't have a problem with homosexuality." Let's look at that quote in context. After all, Nitkowski can do that, so can we, right? "I have no problem with homosexuality, only with homosexual acts." So in other words, as long as gay people don't do anything gay, it's ok. Basically, Santorum believes in "Don't Ask, Don't Do." How is this not homophobic?

Additionally, Santorum has said at various points in his campaign that referring to gay unions as "marriage" is like referring to a napkin as a paper towel, calling a glass of water a glass of beer, calling a tree a car, or calling a cup of tree [sic - I wrote 'tea' and this got changed] a basketball. His argument is simply "it is what it is." This is a tautological argument merely designed to perpetrate homophobia.

Finally, yes, Santorum's "man on dog" comments were taken out of context. Santorum was attempting to claim that homosexuality would lead to polygamy or bestiality. However, he failed to present any logical argument for this. Furthermore, even if we do assume it to be true, there is nothing that would stop heterosexual marriage from eventually allowing those things. After all, if a man can marry one woman, what's going to prevent him from marrying five women? Or going "man on [female] dog?" Clearly, Santorum doesn't want you do think that way. But the fact is, there is no reason to believe acceptance of homosexuality will lead to acceptance of polygamy or bestiality. If those things ever become more socially accepted, then Santorum could take up a campaign against them. But if Nitkowski is correct and those are his only targets, it seems like he is creating a problem to search for a solution. None of the candidates in this election are arguing for legalization of polygamy or bestiality. So if that's all Santorum has a problem with, why is he here now?

However, while Santorum is a blatant homophobe, he does have one commendable stance on gay rights. During a debate, Santorum criticized Iran for "trampling on the rights of gays." Then again, maybe he wants to keep his monopoly.

– Gregory Koch

The DC generally publishes letters every Friday, although did not do so the first week of the semester. I suspect this is because it only included letters written Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday as opposed to Friday-Thursday. The article in question was indeed from last week.