Wilderness wanderings: Emily Whitten on Maurice Sendak and Jean Craighead George 
Click to Print
Include Comments
‘In connection with the laws of his God’
The problem with Daniel, as far as his enemies were concerned, was that they couldn’t get any dirt on him. Yet they were determined to ruin him in the political arena, so they had to get desperate and creative:
“Then this Daniel became distinguished above all the other high officials and satraps, because an excellent spirit was in him. And the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom. Then the high officials and the satraps sought to find a ground for complaint against Daniel with regard to the kingdom, but they could find no ground for complaint or any fault, because he was faithful, and no error or fault was found in him. Then these men said, ‘We shall not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God’” (Daniel 6:3-5).
Here’s a hunch: Google “Santorum” and “contraception” for a preview of the modern satraps’ possible strategy toward a former senator from Pennsylvania with no skeletons in his closet—neither marital scandal nor policy flip-flop. It will soon be whispered—and then shouted abroad—that a Rick Santorum presidency would outlaw contraception.
“When did you stop beating your wife?” is a question you can never shake, never mind that you have never beat your wife. All it takes is to ask the question publicly, and the seed is planted in a hundred thousand minds. The maligned party may run himself into the ground trying to refute it and prove his innocence.
Santorum talks about repealing Obamacare, sending entitlement programs back to the states, reducing discretionary spending, making Social Security solvent, getting rid of federal control of education, repealing the proliferation of executive orders, and restoring sound monetary policy. Which of these do his political enemies want to engage him in? None. Like the underhanded satraps of Daniel’s day, my guess is they will pour their energies into destroying him “in connection with the law of his God.”
The headlines of today are full of celebrity news and gossip. Considering the readership level the national media chooses to appeal to, perhaps they cannot be expected to care about nuanced explication of Santorum’s views on contraception and state government.
back to top19 Comments to “‘In connection with the laws of his God’”
Exactly.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting take, Andree. I read the transcript somebody linked of Santorum’s interview with someone named Bob Scheiffer (never heard of him before). As an outsider to US politics, I have to say I was impressed with Santorum. While he could leave the President’s religion alone, I was glad someone had the courage to question the other things he was questioning. We ’socialist’ Canadians leave education in the hands of the provinces, so his ideas of education reform seemed sound. And its about time somebody acknowledged that the primary purpose of certain prenatal tests is to eliminate undesirables – I know, I did a paper on it, and my (secular) teacher didn’t object to my conclusions. Santorum seems a man of courage and conviction, a rare quality these days.
Report comment to moderator
How many examples of this type of dirty politics can we all recall from history. When a person’s political enemies can find nothing bad on him, they attempt to turn something good into something bad, just as ANDRÉE points out.
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20 ESV)
Perhaps it will backfire on them as it did Daniel’s enemies.
Report comment to moderator
Not just whispered. The man has clearly stated his beliefs. And who is he to ignore what his God wants? I wonder if he has the courage to clearly state that he would take no action to make contraception harder to obtain? Probably not.
We really don’t need another preacher with nukes loose in the world.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder if he has the guts to say that he wants to create a huge government bureacracy to determine which women are allowed to access the pill for medical reasons and which must be denied, because God wouldn’t like that.
And another huge Federal program to pay for the huge increase in unwanted, un-cared for, and medically needy babies born if abortion is made illegal.
Or maybe, since his god doesn’t believe in taxing folks to pay for things like somebody else’s health care, we will have a bull market in child-sized coffins.
Report comment to moderator
I went to the Santorum rally in the Atlanta vicinity last night. We now have a sign of support standing in our yard!
Report comment to moderator
The attempts to smear Santorum may work with a lot of ignorant people but it can also go farther than usual in unmasking the hypocrisy of the left-stream media for the thinking people of the land.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
With over a million abortions a year in the U.S. and contraceptives readily available in millions of places – often even for free – the rate of out-of-wedlock births to women under 30 just went over 50%. The abortion rate has been very high while the rate of out-of-wedlock births has been rising.
So killing more babies will reduce the level of out-of-wedlock births? Doesn’t seem likely.
Report comment to moderator
As abortion has become more accepted around the world the value of human life has lowered from embryo to the elderly. US data shows more than eighty percent of babies aborted and fifty percent of babies born are from unwed mothers. Our watered down, social club churches of today are more to please man than God. They preach a cotton candy gospel that sounds so sweet but has little spiritual, nutritional value. When have you ever heard from the pulpit that premarital sex is the primary reason for our abortions? Is not the Church to be Light in a darkened world? Light shows us the way (truth). When the Church starts fulfilling it true responsibilities before God, then abortion figures will go down. Sound harsh? What is more harsh than abortion?
How many more will be sacrificed to the “god of pleasure” before the Church wakes up?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, why would he need guts to say something he doesn’t believe. He has cleary said this shouldn’t be public policy.
Report comment to moderator
Great post, Beth!
Report comment to moderator
A religious/spiritual blog is not the proper forum make political statements. A political forum is not the place to espouse religion. Both smack of self-righteousness and manipulation.
Report comment to moderator
“Both smack of self-righteousness and manipulation.”
Or perhaps just someone with a well-integrated life.
Report comment to moderator
kbells; Do you have a quote or source for 10 above.
Beth: More abortions would of course reduce the rate of any births.
Fewer abortions or no abortions would certainly increase the rate of all births, most notably however, the rate of unwanted, premie, disabled, and generally unhealthy babies. I haven’t heard Santorum, or ANYBODY on the “pro-life” side address these extra societal costs. And since so many of them are also “conservative” fiscally, the logical result would be lots more dead children.
I understand the moral anti-abortion position, but think that its proponents are not excused from basic accounting and proposals to deal with costs to society. I know that in their hearts most anti-abortion folks hope that somehow a great spasm of sexual morality and responsibility will ensue in the population, but that’s a pretty dubious proposition.
Report comment to moderator
But Arcadia, fewer abortions (from my keyboard to God’s ear, pleases) probably would increase the rate of babies born out of wedlock—which is to say that our moral problem in America today is far far worse than the numbers in the article above would indicate.
Report comment to moderator
“I haven’t heard Santorum, or ANYBODY on the “pro-life” side address these extra societal costs.”
Human life is sacred, Arcadia. [Explative deleted] the alleged monetary costs; stop killing human babies! Actually, I think the societal costs from abortion far outweigh the hypothetical projected costs of fewer abortions.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia #14,
I’m shocked. Do you mean that disabled or unhealthy children should be killed? Do you know any disabled children yourself? Do you think they should not have the right to live?
You do realize that Santorum has a severely disabled child? He just spoke about the sad fact that prenatal testing often leads to the killing of babies like his – as well as 90% of Down Syndrome children.
Report comment to moderator
I can’t help but wonder if someone like Arcadia is simply playing the devil’s advocate to stir up the pot. If not, how common her modern day profession of “compassion” truly is. For the sake of neglecting emotion, is abortion an intelligent option to offer women? If we say that it’s a good thing, then as the number of abortions rise, who will be left to cover the debt our government is constantly increasing? No new blood, debt unpaid. Sounds like a great future for those who have not been “mercifully” killed. Oh wait, we are talking about the unwanted, i.e. mentally disadvantaged, orphans, and the like (you just might want to check scripture on this). Well, let’s take a look at history and take note of Hitler’s philosophy and the success of Nazi Germany. Was he not full of compassion (for the perfect race)? Did he not bring Germany out of a depression (and back again)? Was Hitler not idolized? Did he not see himself as a god? How ignorant we are to not recognize evil when it presents itself, especially since it repeats itself. Obviously, compassion is a relative term.
Report comment to moderator
#18 Nique The abortion debate was ’settled’ in 1973. The American people like it that way or they’d do something about it. We are a minority within a minority because not all conservatives are pro-life.
If the church really cared we’d be at every abortion clinic in large numbers calling out to the ladies that God loves them and their babies and that we can help. We aren’t. We’d rather whine and complain and blame it on the Leftists/Communists/Socialists/ Marxists/Trotskyites, etc. or whoever we can find. Starting with Reagan and especially Bush 2 the GOP had all kinds of opportunities to do something, including Santorum. Did they do anything? So, why do we think Santorum would do anything now? He was slaughtered in his last run for re-election. His own state soundly rejected him.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!