Tuesday, August 16, 2005
The Gospel according to Santorum
CSP: Sen. Rick Santorum:
". . . I see in this fall (the Catholic clergy child-sex scandal) an opportunity for ecclesial rebirth and a new evangelization of America. . . . The most obvious change must occur within American seminaries, many of which demonstrate the same brand of cultural liberalism plaguing our secular universities.
It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.
. . ."
"Fishers of Men"
By the Honorable Senator Rick Santorum
Stuff like this always reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, from my brother Shane:
Right-Wing Nut: "You hate our freedom, don't you, Shane."
Shane: "I'm starting to hate your freedom. Your right to vote kind of pisses me off right now, for example."
"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality --
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it?
SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in."
Not only does Ricky equate homosexuality with sexual predation on children and with bestiality, he openly calls for the abolition of any "right to privacy" -- which, in his view, is a fiction:
"And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. . . ."
Commy.
(So, since Ricky so obviously "hates our freedom," is he not, then [by definition], a "terrorist"? I think a one-way ticket to Gitmo is in order . . .)
So what might we do in order help Ricky demonstrate the nonexistence of this supposed "right" to privacy to the ignorant masses? I hereby call for volunteers: if you live in D.C. (or in Pennsylvania, if you know where his family lives) and have a video camera, please, please stalk poor Ricky and his family day and night; record his every move, his every utterance; follow him into his home, and tape him in the shower and on the shitter; tape him masturbating and picking his nose; tape him while he sleeps -- and, just for fun, wake him up every 17 minutes by urinating on his sheets, then tell him "you wed the bed again, Ricky"; . . . and whilst doing all these things, cover your hands with peanut butter and maple syrup and rub them all over his face continuously -- for, after all, according to him, not only is there no right to privacy, but he quite specifically denies any right to control over your own body. Hell, stick a herring up his anus, while you're at it.
But if he moans softly in ecstacy, run away; run far, far away.
Or better yet, implant some sort of large (and preferrably very noisy) parasite inside him, using a very large needle to do so; an egg-laying parasite.
What possible objection could Ricky have, after all? . . .
". . . I see in this fall (the Catholic clergy child-sex scandal) an opportunity for ecclesial rebirth and a new evangelization of America. . . . The most obvious change must occur within American seminaries, many of which demonstrate the same brand of cultural liberalism plaguing our secular universities.
It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.
. . ."
"Fishers of Men"
By the Honorable Senator Rick Santorum
Stuff like this always reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, from my brother Shane:
Right-Wing Nut: "You hate our freedom, don't you, Shane."
Shane: "I'm starting to hate your freedom. Your right to vote kind of pisses me off right now, for example."
"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality --
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it?
SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in."
Not only does Ricky equate homosexuality with sexual predation on children and with bestiality, he openly calls for the abolition of any "right to privacy" -- which, in his view, is a fiction:
"And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. . . ."
Commy.
(So, since Ricky so obviously "hates our freedom," is he not, then [by definition], a "terrorist"? I think a one-way ticket to Gitmo is in order . . .)
So what might we do in order help Ricky demonstrate the nonexistence of this supposed "right" to privacy to the ignorant masses? I hereby call for volunteers: if you live in D.C. (or in Pennsylvania, if you know where his family lives) and have a video camera, please, please stalk poor Ricky and his family day and night; record his every move, his every utterance; follow him into his home, and tape him in the shower and on the shitter; tape him masturbating and picking his nose; tape him while he sleeps -- and, just for fun, wake him up every 17 minutes by urinating on his sheets, then tell him "you wed the bed again, Ricky"; . . . and whilst doing all these things, cover your hands with peanut butter and maple syrup and rub them all over his face continuously -- for, after all, according to him, not only is there no right to privacy, but he quite specifically denies any right to control over your own body. Hell, stick a herring up his anus, while you're at it.
But if he moans softly in ecstacy, run away; run far, far away.
Or better yet, implant some sort of large (and preferrably very noisy) parasite inside him, using a very large needle to do so; an egg-laying parasite.
What possible objection could Ricky have, after all? . . .
| |
