Dissenting theories should not be repressed, but discussed openly. To do
otherwise is to violate intellectual freedom. Such efforts at censorship
abrogate critical thinking and will ultimately thwart scientific progress. . . .
Stifling freedom of discussion is wrong because it undermines the pursuit
of truth and the presentation of different points of view, which should be
the primary goal of education (emphasis mine) (2).
While there is nothing in the passages above that would offend the sensibilities of
any Enlightenment thinker or classical liberal, their invocation by Santorum, as well as
his use of Voltaire as an authority, is ironic, to say the least. As the author of the rigidly
staunch defender of “family values,” Santorum’s use of the anti-clerical, quasi-deist,
defender of liberal toleration as a “doctrinal” authority to ultimately defend a heavily
Christian-centric, quasi-fundamentalist socio-educational vision raises significant
questions concerning the normative authenticity and intellectual consistency of his
overall position and political end-game. While not necessarily definitive evidence of “bad
faith,” the following excerpt from a lecture given by Santorum just four years earlier does
raise the specter of disingenuousness on his part. In that lecture, titled The Necessity of
Truth, Santorum writes:
In my remarks to you this afternoon, I will examine the paradox of a
people that strives to be both religious and non-judgmental. How is it
possible, I wonder, to believe in the existence of God yet refuse to express
outrage when his moral code is flouted? To have faith in God, but to reject
3
Convention