Who’s running a theocracy?
Im going to make this as simple as possible.
Members of the media are trying to do to Rick Santorum what they were successful in doing to Mike Huckabee: mark the man as some sort of a religious lunatic.
I am sure the other campaigns (including Obama) are all too happy to revel in the narrative and exploit the missteps of the Santorum campaign.
What is not mentioned or discussed is if we take President Obama at his word, and implement his policies as he wished, we would be living in a theocracy of sorts.
After all it is President Obama who brought up during the National Prayer Breakfast how Jesus would “approve” of his tax the rich proposal.
There is the openly brazen attack on the First Amendment by forcing Catholic hospitals and healthcare plans to pay for birth control of various nature even though it is directly against their beliefs. To be clear this is a policy being deployed without exception.
Not to be outdone were remarks in 2008 in which President Obama writes off people with opposing (traditional) views as “bitter clingers.”
Compare these actual policy initiatives with Rick Santorum’s 2008 remarks in which he characterizes America in a positive light being “attacked” by Satan through vises. Listen to the clip your self.
What is odd, I would argue, is not what Santorum said – but the fact that he went there. Presidential candidates usually do not do that sort of thing.
This leads me to ask the question why, is Santorum getting labeled as some sort of theocrat when it is President Obama an Democrats who are forcing their views on the rest of us?
Santorum’s campaign did themselves no favor and made several rookie mistakes by casting a number of policy questions, such as the tax question, as that of religious nature.
Is that worse than the recent Health and Human Services decision made by the Obama administration?
I am not a Santorum apologist or even dedicated backer.
What I am, though, is a Christian with a concern of seeing main stream Christian ideology and discussion is labeled as radical when there is actual policy in place removing basic freedoms.
After all, that is the fear of a theocracy, is it not?
If that is the case, then who exactly is running a theocracy?