"Theocracy and Its Discontents"

On February 23, 2012, the New York Times published a political commentary by Timothy Egan entitled "Theocracy and Its Discontents". Egan is an 18-year Times veteran reporter, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and a National Book Award-winning author. In this commentary, Egan makes the argument that presidential candidate Rick Santorum is involving his religious beliefs in his political ideology too strongly for his own good. This argument attempts to convince those not already opposed to Santorum of the potentially disastrous results of his being elected. He cites examples of past fusions of civil and religious law, such as the original Puritan colonists of Massachusetts Bay and Brigham Young's Mormon empire. Egan notes that no such theocratic government exists in America today - "reason ultimately won out." He tells of how Roger Williams, banished from the Puritan colony in 1636, created his own colony of Rhode Island, the first government in the world to separate church and state, and how the idea of such a government has "coursed through American society ever since."

"It was a radical thought in 1636," writes Egan. "It’s written in the Constitution now. And yet, with Rick Santorum riding high in the Republican primaries, it looks as if this issue will get another go-round."

According to Egan, Santorum has openly opposed accepted practices involving sexuality on the basis that they contradict God's law, such as contraception and sex purely for pleasure. "Most Americans won’t begrudge him his beliefs; he’s free to practice them, and imbue his children with them," Egan says. He then adds, "But most Americans also will part ways with him when he advocates that civil code should adhere to his religious beliefs."

Egan again mentions historical paradigms in which theocracy went awry, resulting in religious persecution or total disregard for the Constitution. "Santorum," he holds, "is itching to add another chapter to this book."gan lists a number of examples to support this, which include Santorum's claim that former president John F. Kennedy, a fellow Catholic, caused "great harm to America" by refusing to let his faith dictate his political ideology; questioning the current President's "phony theology"; and denying climate change with a religious argument. "You may think he’s running for chief deacon, and should swap his sweater vest for a clerical collar," says Egan. It is obvious that Egan does not quite share the same views as Santorum.

Egan foreshadows the possible calamity of electing a leader who mixes civil and religious law so inseparably, noting that "Santorum has long tried to get his Biblical principles taught to children in public schools — insisting that 'creationism' should be in every American classroom, and trying to enforce that through riders to education bills when he was a senator." He concludes that it might benefit the students more to instead learn of Roger Williams, the founder of the current model of American government, "a man of faith, and of reason."

Egan's opinion is that Santorum might be allowing faith to take precedence over unbiased reason, which could potentially damage the government greatly if he is able to somehow gain enough leverage to break the barrier between church and state. While I do not agree with all of Egan's points, and I highly doubt the consequences of Santorum being elected would be remotely as dire as he makes them out to be, Egan does make several valid points based on solid historical examples, and his commentary is worth reading, if only to get an inside glimpse of the opinions of those on the other end of the spectrum.