I keep thinking there was a time when, if a media outlet wanted a respectable opinion written or spoken — something the public would read/watch and consider carefully — they would ask a prominent politician, or a “think tank” analyst, or eminent scholar. Alas, how “infotainment” has bankrupted our culture: to make an analysis of Rick Santorum, fresh from his Iowa triumph, CNN asked Dean Obeidallah.
The editor informs us, “Dean Obeidallah is a comedian who has appeared on Comedy Central’s Axis of Evil special, ABC’s The View, CNN’s What the Week and HLN’s The Joy Behar Show.” So even if the title of the hit piece — “Santorum wants to impose ‘Judeo-Christian Sharia’” — didn’t give it away, you would still be warned that Obeidallah would hardly give Santorum a bouquet of flowers, judging by the venues he’s playing.
Imagine if either of the two Muslim members of Congress declared their support for a proposed American law based on verses from the Quran. The outcry would be deafening, especially from people like Santorum.One of the great ironies is that Santorum has been a leader in sounding alarm bells that Muslims want to impose Islamic law — called Sharia law — upon non-Muslims in America. While Santorum fails to offer even a scintilla of credible evidence to support this claim, he continually warns about the “creeping” influence of Muslim law.
So okay, Obedallah’s first complaint is hypocrisy. I might buy that if Santorum weren’t speaking in the context of a democracy where the concept of God-given inalienable human rights obtains as a Christian legacy (despite secular humanist attempts to take credit for it). As it is, Obeidallah’s attempt to make the two equivalent merely strike one as ludicrous.
Then Obeidallah asks dramatically, “So, what type of nation might the United States be under Rick Santorum’s Sharia law?
“1. Rape victims would be forced to give birth to the rapist’s child. Santorum has stated that his religious beliefs dictate that life begins at conception, and as a result, rape victims would be sentenced to carrying the child of the rapist for nine months.“2. Gay marriages would be annulled. Santorum recently declared that not only does he oppose gay marriages, but he supports a federal constitutional amendment that would ban them, invalidating all previous gay marriages that have legally been sanctioned by states and thus callously destroying marriages and thrusting families into chaos.“3. Santorum would ban all federal funding for birth control and would not oppose any state that wanted to pass laws making birth control illegal.“4. No porn! I’m not kidding. Santorum signed ‘The Marriage Vow’ pledge authored by the Family Leader organization, under which he swears to oppose pornography. I think many would agree that alone should disqualify him from being president.”
Yep, ladies and gentlemen, this is the horrific dhimmitude that Rick Santorum will somehow singlehandedly impose on the whole United States.
- The idea that the mother’s victimhood justifies the killing of her child is possibly the most horrific bastardization of “compassion” ever foisted on a civilized society, one that does the mother more harm — both physical and emotional — than good. It was bulls*** in 1973 and it’s bulls*** now. Let’s stop pretending it’s “freedom”: it’s naked barbarity. Under Sharia, women would have fewer rights than they do now, and would be under the thumbs of the family patriarchs.
- I might buy the argument that a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages would be callous if I could first agree that “gay marriage” was not a contradiction in terms. As it is, my tears stick in their ducts refusing to be jerked by Obeidallah’s overwrought prose. And, under Sharia, homosexuality could be punishable by death (the actual penalty varies from country to country).
- And refusing to pay for people’s contraceptives with my tax dollars would be a problem … how? Gee, I suppose that, without federally-funded pills and rubbers, people would have to actually think before they f***! [My apologies for the strong language, but in this particular instance the F-bomb is definitely called for.]
- "I think many would agree that [opposing porn] alone should disqualify him from being president.” I think this statement alone should disqualify Obeidallah from being taken seriously as a policy analyst. Oh, wait a minute, I forgot — he’s a comedian; why are we supposed to take him seriously?
For his peroration, Obeidallah invokes the tired “separation of church and state” red herring. As I’ve discussed before (here and here), the whole point of a representative democracy is to reconcile the conflicting moral imperatives brought by different religious imperatives. By contrast, secularists simply want to exercise veto power over every law by classing them “religion-based” and “not religion-based” according to their own whims … effectively handing over control of the law to a privileged, self-selected minority.
In fact, the attempt to equate the implementation of Christian morality with the imposition of Sharia is both facile and disingenuous. The concept of human rights is a European construct based on the Christian belief in the fundamental dignity of the human being. When Thomas Jefferson (he of the “wall of separation fame”, you know?) penned that humans were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”, he wasn’t merely employing ceremonial deism but articulating the consensus opinion that God was the source of these rights, that they hadn’t just been pulled out of a philosophical hat.
By contrast, Sharia doesn’t recognize “human rights” per se, but rather is constructed on the concept of mutual obligation. This is why Sharia doesn’t recognize freedom of religion, women’s equality or gay rights, why religious dissenters and ethnic minorities are persecuted and harassed. To say that Santorum’s desire to encode Christian moral principles in law is a “Judeo-Christian Sharia” is merely the kind of shrill, “jack-booted right-wing fascist” agitprop lefties resort to when logic fails them.
You know what the funniest joke in Obeidallah’s piece is?
“Follow him on Twitter.”