Dana Radcliffe's "Should Public Policy Conform to 'God's Law'?"

Dana Radcliffe, a professor in business ethics, wrote a blog entitled "Should Public Policy Conform to 'God's Law'?"  and it was posted on The Huffington Post blog.  In this blog, Professor Radcliffe discusses the comments that Rick Santorum has made in debates and speeches about things that he would do if put into the White House.  After reading the blog, I have decided that I sit on the side of Professor Radcliffe when it comes to religion and public policy.  I believe that the intended audience for Professor Radcliffe's blog are democrats and liberals that read the Huffington Post, like myself, and the ages vary.  College students, various religious affiliates, as well as republicans would do well to read this blog to see what Santorum has planned for the American people if elected president.  I believe that Professor Radcliffe's credibility is established in the fact that he is a practicing professor in business ethics with a PhD in philosophy.  He is a professor at Syracuse University as well as at other two lesser know colleges.  He attended Yale and UCLA but got his doctorate at Syracuse University.  He, as a professor in business ethics, knows what it takes to be a leader.  He understands what is valuable in a candidate and what people value as a whole. 

In this blog entry, Professor Radcliffe is informing the public of why letting Rick Santorum use his religious beliefs to control policy and law making is an unwise choice.  He explains that Rick Santorum believes that human laws must align with a "higher law". While the professor does not disagree with that sentiment, he is disturbed by the fact that Santorum doesn't respect any opposing opinions.  Santorum feels that his god is the right god and that is the end of the conversation.  By believing and acting this way, Santorum is not only alienating a lot of his constituents, he is offending every other religion in the world!  He even accuses President Obama from practicing a "phony"theology.  

As for the public policy, Professor Radcliffe informs his readers about a few policies that Santorum has promised if he becomes President of the United States.  Santorum has vowed to prohibit abortion and same-sex marriage.  Professor Radcliffe states that as a Christian, he find parts of his theology -- presumably the "real" theology -- mystifying.  For example, "I cannot see how the freedom practice my faith is, as his website alleges, "under attack through the redefinition of marriage." Indeed, since New York legalized same-sex marriage last summer, I have not noticed any diminution of my religious liberty."  The professor also questions that right of the Catholic church to determine public policy or, if by proxy, have a presidential candidate do it on their behalf, whether knowing or not. 

I enjoyed reading the professor's blog entry.  It was a concise and straightforward, and I enjoyed that 

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/02/10/birth-control-debate-exposes-desired-social-control-from-catholic-bishops/


I just read this blog on FireDogLake and I am a little confused by it.  From what I understand, Obama has made it so insurance can be used in acquiring birth control.  But, religious universities and religious institutions do not have to oblige because of moral and religious objections.  So, the New York Archbishop thinks that the compromise is not satisfactory because the employees that work for said religious institutions that have their insurance paid for by these institutions will, in a sense, have their contraception paid for by these institutions.  He feels that the church is paying for it in a round about way.  He says that he is worried about "government intrusion into issues of faith and morals", but yet it is the Catholic church and supporters that are the intruders.  I understand that Catholics and some Christians are against contraception and other things, such as gay marriage, or just homosexuality in general, but it is they that force their morals onto others and heavily lean on politicians to regulate these morals.  I don't understand why these factions need legislation to enforce their religious beliefs.  Don't they believe that their followers have minds of their own and can decide their own morality?  Or, is that the reason for the legislation?  They are afraid that they do have their own minds and will not do as they claim to believe should be done?  Why legislation for who gets birth control with the help of insurance?  If you are Catholic, and believe that contraception is not in line with your morals, then don't participate.  Don't get birth control.  Don't use your insurance for contraception.  Why do we need a law to provide an exemption for them?  Why not let people decide for themselves what is right for them?  Same as gay marriage....if my gay friend decides to marry his/her partner, how does that adversely affect my life or yours?  If I decide I don't agree that gays should marry, why does that mean I have a say in whether they do or don't ?  I would love to live in a world where we are free to worship as we please, love as we please, use birth control if we please (and have insurance to help pay for it), or just live freely without the "intrusion" of religion or government.   I am more worried about the uninsured being able to afford insurance than this dumb arguing over whether or not the insured can use it for reproductive services.  I think that we need to stop arguing over the morality of a few and worry more about the hundreds of thousands of uninsured people living under the poverty line.  It seems that there are more important things to worry about than a condom or birth control pill and who has access to it through insurance. 

I think that this article is worth reading because it just reinforces the antiquated foundation that politicians seem to base all decisons.  It is worth reading just for the sense of oxymoron that the Archbishop uses in his reasoning for wanting the bill revisited.  I think it is another step along the slippery slope in regulating the rights of women.  I think all women need to read this blog for the simple fact that whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, it affects all of our rights in the long run.  Each little stab at that needs to be known.

Just my two cents.