moral absolutes. . . . How is it possible to be a theist and a relativist, a
traditionalist and a post-modernist. . . . My answer to these questions is
that it simply is not possible (1999, 1).
If indeed holding both sets of positions is not possible, then it is perfectly
reasonable to ask which set Santorum himself claims to hold? Though couched in the
voice of the American Founders, it is quite clear that Santorum is speaking for himself as
well when he asserts later in that speech, first on behalf of the inalienable rights of the
Declaration of Independence and subsequently on religion itself:
They are simply there, part of the created order. And because they are
divinely sanctioned, it followed that even if a wicked and depraved
majority tried to subvert them in the name of “democracy,” the moral
minority would be obliged to resist the majority’s wishes in the name of
moral truth (1999, 3).
To them, religion made stern, uncompromising moral demands on its
adherents; to us, religion is just therapeutic, another way to feel good
about ourselves. To them, religion pointed to an absolute truth; to us,
religion gives us many competing “truths,” any one operative if the
majority, or person with the gun, wills it. But if the Founders would
disapprove of the way religion in America today has been marginalized,
modern secularists must be delighted. What passes for “faith” in
judmentaphobic America is little more than a toothless tiger. . . Certainly,
4
Convention