Rick Santorum says that the smart people will never be on his side.
He didn't exactly say it that way: he said, "our side", because he believes that he is America. Then he said something that is either purely ignorant, or scrambled-egg stupid.
"The basic premise of America and American values will always be sustained through two institutions -- the church and the family."
Imagine what America would be like if it were shaped purely by family and church. I don't know why the Hatfields and the McCoys come immediately to mind. Perhaps because I come from a family, myself. But, worse than that, I cannot imagine what it means to think of a nation as a family; even an extended family. I can somewhat imagine a clan, even a large clan, but a nation is not a clan. A nation is neither Hatfields nor McCoys, extended.
And as for pretending that a nation is a religious community, we have tried that throughout human history, and it is an ugly history, and prospect. Which religion do you have in mind: yours or mine? Or theirs?
Right now, we are seeing nations trying to escape from extended clans with strong men rulers to become religious nations. It doesn't matter what the religion is: the people with different religions are both intimidated and enraged. Even when what seems to outsiders to be monolithic religious nations go through political revolutions, what we really are seeing is savage contests to impose a specific religious rule.
Europe once was a Holy Roman Empire: that is what the Roman Empire became when the Christians in Rome managed to control the empire. There were centuries of marches on "The Holy Land" to free it from "the infidels". The infidels? They were Muslims: another religious group. And the Muslims saw infidels, too: they saw Christians.
When some of the outsiders in the Holy Roman Empire protested the holiness of the empire, and formed Protestant religions, Europe enjoyed centuries of internal religious warfare. Some of those Protestants, and some of the Catholics, too, thought that moving to America--a huge newly accessible territory completely uninhabited except for the Native Americans who had lived there for thousands of years, ever since they had walked and sailed there from the other side of the continent--huge numbers of Europeans tried to escape the European governments that were dominated by religious groups that persecuted them, and now the emigrants thought it might be there turn.
Our nation is not a family. It is not a church. It is a nation. A nation with a constitution, and when the churches find themselves at odds with the constitution, and the laws of the nation, the nation will have its way. It might change, under pressure, but still it will be the nation that is the final arbiter, not the Baptists, nor the Catholics, nor any other religious group. Mitt Romney's grandfather (of was it great-grandfather, decided to move to Mexico when the nation outlawed polygamy.
Churches may lobby for polygamy, or monogamy, or second-rate citizenship for women, but it is the nation that defines its values. They aren't always commendable values--slavery, slow to admit women to vote, "chosen people" claims, etc.--but that is how we define who we are. And that is why elections matter.
He didn't exactly say it that way: he said, "our side", because he believes that he is America. Then he said something that is either purely ignorant, or scrambled-egg stupid.
"The basic premise of America and American values will always be sustained through two institutions -- the church and the family."
Imagine what America would be like if it were shaped purely by family and church. I don't know why the Hatfields and the McCoys come immediately to mind. Perhaps because I come from a family, myself. But, worse than that, I cannot imagine what it means to think of a nation as a family; even an extended family. I can somewhat imagine a clan, even a large clan, but a nation is not a clan. A nation is neither Hatfields nor McCoys, extended.
And as for pretending that a nation is a religious community, we have tried that throughout human history, and it is an ugly history, and prospect. Which religion do you have in mind: yours or mine? Or theirs?
Right now, we are seeing nations trying to escape from extended clans with strong men rulers to become religious nations. It doesn't matter what the religion is: the people with different religions are both intimidated and enraged. Even when what seems to outsiders to be monolithic religious nations go through political revolutions, what we really are seeing is savage contests to impose a specific religious rule.
Europe once was a Holy Roman Empire: that is what the Roman Empire became when the Christians in Rome managed to control the empire. There were centuries of marches on "The Holy Land" to free it from "the infidels". The infidels? They were Muslims: another religious group. And the Muslims saw infidels, too: they saw Christians.
When some of the outsiders in the Holy Roman Empire protested the holiness of the empire, and formed Protestant religions, Europe enjoyed centuries of internal religious warfare. Some of those Protestants, and some of the Catholics, too, thought that moving to America--a huge newly accessible territory completely uninhabited except for the Native Americans who had lived there for thousands of years, ever since they had walked and sailed there from the other side of the continent--huge numbers of Europeans tried to escape the European governments that were dominated by religious groups that persecuted them, and now the emigrants thought it might be there turn.
Our nation is not a family. It is not a church. It is a nation. A nation with a constitution, and when the churches find themselves at odds with the constitution, and the laws of the nation, the nation will have its way. It might change, under pressure, but still it will be the nation that is the final arbiter, not the Baptists, nor the Catholics, nor any other religious group. Mitt Romney's grandfather (of was it great-grandfather, decided to move to Mexico when the nation outlawed polygamy.
Churches may lobby for polygamy, or monogamy, or second-rate citizenship for women, but it is the nation that defines its values. They aren't always commendable values--slavery, slow to admit women to vote, "chosen people" claims, etc.--but that is how we define who we are. And that is why elections matter.
Comments
Post a Comment