Hi everyone! School has kept me extremely busy these last few weeks, obviously, but second semester is going much better than the first. I wanted to share with you some thoughts that I’ve been mulling over the past few weeks, now that the GOP race is getting rather intense. Throughout my recent GOP-related blog posts, I’ve tried to remain factual and neutral, researching the candidates thoroughly to get an idea of who they are and what they stand for. But this blog post, and the questions I’ve come up with, don’t really have all that much to do with the candidates themselves, but their stances on social issues, and whether their resolutions to these problems will really strike the root of the problem or not.
Let me preface this by saying that I’m focusing on social issues here because I believe that the moral structure of America lays the foundation for the rest of our society, and determines much of our nation’s policy and principle.
For a moment, I want to look at Ron Paul and Rick Santorum’s stances on social issues, specifically abortion and gay marriage.
In a general sense, Ron Paul believes it is the role of government to protect liberty, for the government to remain separate from private life, and to ultimately follow the Constitution. He is ardently pro-life. As President, he would request that Congress remove these issues from the federal judiciary and return them to the states for them to decide on. An interesting quote of Dr. Paul’s:
"Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership." Rick Santorum is best known for his strong stance against abortion and for traditional marriage. He seems to be very focused on the Judeo-Christian foundations of our nation and the preservation of those foundations by government. He favors a federal ban on abortion, and also a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. He is arguably the most pro-family candidate that the GOP has seen in a number of years. He says this about marriage:
“Marriage is a society’s life blood. Not everybody can or will marry, but all of us (married or not) depend on marriage in a unique way. Marriage is foundational: it creates and sustains not only children but civilization itself. This is an institution which protects our liberty.” This is just a quick glance at the two candidates’ stances on these issues, to help you get a general idea of where they stand. You can read much more about their views on these sites:
http://ronpaulmyths.com/social-issues.php
http://www.ricksantorum.com/we-hold-these-truths
So, who is right? Ron Paul believes the federal government should not have any say in moral issues, but Rick Santorum believes the Constitution should be amended to protect the sanctity of life and of traditional marriage. I’ve heard numerous arguments against both candidates. Some of the most recent that I’ve heard have been against Ron Paul; it seems that many folks think that Ron Paul’s view of getting government out of private life will trample upon and demolish the Judeo-Christian foundations of this country. I’ve heard arguments against Rick Santorum, also; many think that the federal government and the Constitution cannot and should not be involved in maintaining our country’s founding moral and religious values.
Both, I think, are legitimate arguments worth discussing. I believe in small government and individual liberty, wholeheartedly. But I also realize the value and importance of our country’s moral and religious roots. My questions are, though, can our system of government rightly be involved in social issues? Did our Founders intend for the Constitution to address moral issues such as the ones we face today? And will either of the solutions proposed by Paul and Santorum really solve any of the problems we face/restore our country’s moral values?
One of my favorite quotes from John Adams is this:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." The Founders believed that government cannot make people moral and religious, but our system of government—self-government, as it was intended—cannot function properly if people are not capable of conducting themselves in a moral and religious manner.
When they drafted and ratified the Constitution, I don’t know if anyone at the Constitutional Convention could have predicted the types of problems their nation would face just a few hundred years into the future. But, I feel that they would have thought it a great overreach for the federal government and the Constitution to be involved in moral issues. Yes, our Republic and its success require a moral and religious people—but as Adams said, the Republic isn’t capable of controlling “human passions unbridled by morality and religion.”
This is what I’m having a hard time understanding. Ron Paul, a Baptist who I’ve heard speak of his religion as a very private matter, is very Constitutionalist and believes it’s the responsibility of the individual to govern themselves, and that the government has no place in private life. Rick Santorum is enthusiastically in favor of maintaining our moral and religious values, but by way of Constitutional amendments and federal bans.
Can people, in their current moral and religious state (which is arguably lacking compared to the last few decades/centuries), handle the type of liberty that Ron Paul supports? Will instituting federal direction on moral and religious issues, as Santorum supports, solve the problem, or make it worse?
Undoubtedly, as I’ve said before, it’s not hard to look around and see that the moral and religious state of this country is not what it used to be. In fact, I’d wager to say it’s crumbling right before our eyes. I think the solution to this, though, is not in government that would simply make something “illegal” without reaching to the root of the problem. (Please note: I’m pro-life, and believe that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.) But will making a law or amendment that says “this is how it’s going to be, like it or not” really teach people
why abortion is wrong, and will it make people
understand that the definition of the word “marriage” is the union of a man and a woman? I personally think the issues we face in morals and religion are solved within the individual. Instead of more laws and more government intervention, teach people about the sanctity of marriage and of the sanctity of life, so that eventually, there’s no question as to what is right and what is wrong. This is a very rudimentary example, and I know this would take a great deal of time and effort and faith—but I really think that our problems would be better solved by reaching out to the hearts of people to help them understand the definition and practice of true morality and righteousness.
This is what has been on my mind these past few weeks. I hope I’ve laid out my thoughts clearly enough, and I welcome your opinions and comments on the candidates and their stances on these issues.
As always, thanks for reading ☺. And don’t forget about the GOP Primary coming up this Tuesday for all my Missouri readers! Hope everyone has a great weekend!
http://www.ricksantorum.com/we-hold-these-truths
http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Santorum/Abortion.php
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Pennsylvania/Rick_Santorum/Views/Gay_Marriage/
http://ronpaulmyths.com/social-issues.php
http://www.free2pray.info/5founderquotes.html
