lol - yeah, we wouldn't want to force health care on all of those "undeserving' poor babies.

"Santorum calls for the abolition of public schools: Fresh off his excommunication of millions of Protestants, Rick Santorum is now calling for the abolition of the public school system. According to Rick, everyone has to either home school their child (with of course the mother staying home), pay a primary and secondary school version of the University of Phoenix, or (probably his preference given the role Protestanism played in the creation of the public school system) send them to parochial schools with, in this instance, the government footing the bill."

When wealth gets distributed up, extremists in the Republican Party call it trickle down and job creation. When wealth gets redistributed down, radical Republicans call it class warfare. When corporations get tax dollars, they call it capitalism. When people get tax dollars, they call it welfare. Imposing their beliefs on others is religious freedom, unless you are Rasta, native American, Muslim or other non-christian and then you don't have any, Anybody else see a pattern here?

Santorum strikes me as a one of these late-night fundamentalist preachers, a shiny toothed, freshly washed & combed, snappily dressed "made for USA" simulacrum of a Mullah from theocratic Iran. That Riick would cynically claim that our rights come from God - and there is no proof of this, indicates to me that his intentions will never mesh with mine, therefore I oppose him on this principle alone. Apparently, he is unfamiliar with the US Constitution, where there is NO MENTION of GOD [or Christianity]. Rick desperately wants a Christian Nation [a fantasy created by the wishful], and I oppose this wish. Santorum continues to display to all who will listen, that he is willing to suspend reason, believe in anything, and fabricate history to make his dream of an American Christian Theocracy come to fruition.

Oh but. Banning birth control, and putting women back in the kitchen where they belong, and eliminating public schools in favor of home schooling is much more important than say......jobs, education, feeding the family, paying the bills, and saving for old age and college.

When the Republicans can wrest their party back from 18th century, Independents will finally have a choice in the voting booth. Until then it is the lesser of the evils, and Democrats win - hands down.

If you're a Republican...NO, you don't remember that at all. To be a modern Republican is to forget the very existence of "President George W. Bush," and to believe that history began on 20 January 2009.

To them, everything before that is a haze of Founding Fathers, Ronald Reagan, the Old Testament, selected parts of the Constitution, 9/11, and a Norman Rockwell image of "America" that "needs to be taken back."

Typo... there is no such thing...my mom would shoot me... LOL

:) Your mom may "through" you under the bus for another typo.

No one should throw anyone under a bus for having an opinion or not being 100% loyal to a party regardless of that party's viewpoints or how they evolve over time. I think the fact that we're so quick to speak in absolutes is another problem we're facing. If you suggest that you think the government provides services that are valuable, you're tagged an ALL-CAP UNAMERICAN SOCIALIST LIBTARD OBAMACARIAN. In response, people on the left (like me) will be tempted to fire back with similar hyperbole (though we don't seem as fond of the caps lock key). I can't jump to conclusions and think that anyone who favors lower taxes necessarily wants the poor to live in tin shacks and send 10-year-olds to work in coal mines so we can eliminate taxes for the rich.

I'm not sure if Santorum is just blowing hot air though. He seems to be on a crusade and not interested in compromise or discussion. It's time for his god's law to rule.

Can you repost that link? I can't get it to work and it sounds interesting.

Scot - unfornutately, Santorum calls folks who bring up historical facts as "elitist snobs."
I'm just hoping that most people remember our actual history, and not buy the most recent attempt at revisionist history. Kind of scary.

Jo... Washington was born a Methodist died a Deists, if you don't know what that is look it up, then both you and Rick Santorum won't look like American history ---- Sorry to be so blunt. I would agree, thank our founding fathers there is checks and balances in Washington DC, you did get that part of history right. Jo let's hope there will be somebody left in Washington DC that knows something about our history, and our continuation after this election. Thanks for your comments. I won't vote for those who do not understand or respect American history just my opinion.

Jo, it matters a great deal who is elected President.

The President oversees the Executive Branch and all the Cabinet Departments. Who the President appoints to Cabinet positions, enforcement of existing laws and regulations -- these matter. Just consider the difference in priorities between Presidents Bush and Obama. Do we want a President who believes an efficient government has a role in improving the economy and our lives, or one who holds as a base principle that government can NEVER be efficient or effective, and must therefore be hamstrung and powerless (except in our bedrooms, of course).

[Of course, expect Senate Democrats to use the filibuster to do unto "President Romney" or "President Santorum" exactly what Senate Republicans have done to President Obama for three years running -- do we really want that kind of non-functioning government? That said, expect that if the GOP retakes the Senate they'll do something about the filibuster, even after years of opposing changes when they weren't in control.]

The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces -- and as we've seen time and again, the C-in-C takes unilateral action without Congress issuing a formal declaration of war. Do we really want "President Santorum" or "President Romney" attacking Iran, returning troops to Iraq against their wishes, or reneging on the agreement to end combat operations in Afghanistan?

And of course, the President appoints Supreme Court Justices. 'Nuff said.

George Washington was never a deist.
Exactly 2 people called him that back in the day - both were insults. One was after his death.
The Left has to push this deist lie - or their godless version of America does not hold water.
There are over one hundred different prayers composed and written by Geroge Washington in his own hand, with his own words, in his writings.... he never once used the word “Deist” in his voluminous writings, he often mentioned religion, Christianity, and the Gospel.
His own writing are by far a better source for this argument than some progressive university professor with an axe to grind.

For some people, religion is irrelevant. Sadly, religious bigotry still exists and we'd be neglectful if we didn't point it out. For most people, Christian isn't a dirty word, but for some people it is. (Or insert another faith for Christianity)

Most people want reasonable boundaries when they talk about the separation of church and state and current interpretations of this idea go too far towards the secular. None of our candidates are talking about wanting a "state" religion. Most people don't care how others worship. This whole thing is about tolerance.

People want to feel like their society will tolerate them, even though they are traditional and religious. They want to feel like they and their culture has a place in our multi-ethnic, diverse society.

Too many people feel like their values, culture, and traditions are being marginalized. That's why people get so emotional when it comes to this issue. They value that our ancestors came here for religious freedom and then our culture tells them that they can't say a little prayer at their kid's high school graduation.

As for Rick, he's not handing out religious pamphlets or directing people to the nearest Catholic church for conversion purposes.

Brian - Why do you 'feel' that "Santorum are intentionally blurring the lines between church and state?"

"The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained."
- George Washington, 1789

"Really's" George Washington quote does not specify a deity, so all this talk of a Christian nation is merely wishful thinking on the part of Christians who maintain the fantasy.

Joker -
Read up on the practice of Religion in Washington's day and you quickly see that only a pastor would use the name "Jesus Christ" or "God" and then only during a sermon - serious practicing Christians actually made a serious attempt to not use nor write God's name.
-
If you want to read up on what Washington actually wrote and said himself, his journals, letters, manuscripts, and those of his closest family and confidants - and can handle 1200 pages - read 'Washington's Sacred Fire'. With 500 pages of footnotes - George Washington's own words - regarding his religious practice and faith. Washington never was deist - not even close.

Tamera, not clueless but I am 56 years old and I have spent my whole life loving America and studying it's rich history. I'm not going to judge you... your young but please put the Bible away and take a class in American history, our founding fathers were those who believed in democracy which was invented by the ancient Greeks 508 years before Jesus Christ. Thomas Jefferson greatest hero was Pericles. Your comments only insult them and that is sad because if it had not been for them... our founding fathers who fought against the "divine right if kings" and created our American democracy; your right we would all live in f-up countries like Pakistan. Tamara... think...? does Washington DC look like your Church down the street...? Have you been to Washington DC have you seen our capital have you seen the Jefferson memorial looks like something from ancient Greece, not from a Christian Bible. Sorry to burst your bubble take an American history class... OU would be a great place to start. George Washington on his deathbed was asked is Jesus Christ the son of god Washington answer NO.

Tamara,

I agree with you, if you visit Washington DC and read about George Washington you will learn he was a God fearing man with principals. He sacrificed plenty for his God and country, all of the founding fathers had this attitude and that is how they used that guidance to put together a foundation that has made a great nation. Many want to ignore this and twist the facts.

Keep the faith in the real words of what happen and ignore the spin.

Tamera - Keep reading your Bible! We need all the prayers we can get! 8-)

1) It is fair to say that some of our founders weren't Christians; however, they didn't overtly try to convert colonists to another tradition. They realized that there was a spiritual part to humanity, even if they didn't explain it as "Christian".

2) A lot of government buildings in DC have the 10 commandments engraved somewhere in the sculptures of the building, even if they were designed in a Greco-Roman style. A lot of the art has religious themes. It's not as simple as some would make it out to be.

3) The church has historically played a role in social activism. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr came out of the church and led the Civil Rights movement. Both the Prohibition/Anti-Slavery movements used churches to make their cases to communities. The fact is that the church wasn't just about "religion," (back in the day) but it was also a place where people shared ideas. We have other ways of doing that now.

4) To understand Western culture, you need to understand church history. Church history isn't always pretty (i.e. the crusades), but that shouldn't negate the good things that the church has done. A lot of cultural references are Biblical, so even if you don't "believe", it is still helpful to know the Bible.

Looks like Santorum is on a crusade of his own. Run down gays. I'm a Christian and so is my gay brother. Using the Bible to take away human rights is wrong.

Tamara, Jo ...don't have any hidden agenda just a former president of the Rochester Hills city council, lover of history and politics. Not a fan of blanket statements about our founding fathers. Yes many of them have very strong Christian convictions many of them wanted a "Christian Bible/God" to be written into our declaration of independence and our constitution but the majority of them did not. That's not my opinion that is a historic fact. I do thank you for your opinions.

This is a interesting read about Franklin and Jefferson hope this link works
http://mikio.hubpages.com/hub/Ben-Franklin-and-Thomas-Jeffersons-Religion-God-is-a-concept

Tamara......The historical revisionists are attempting to re-write the history of the foundations of the United States. If they do not like what they read or it does not support their secular liberal agenda, it is always easy to ignor history and change it if you can get enough likeminded people to agree with you. Public schools no longer spend a lot of time teaching American History so revisionists can tell the products of our education system anything and they will not be challenged. Look at the inscriptions on many government buildings in Washington DC and you will see quotes from the Bible. Someday they will probably be sandblasted off to destroy the evidence. I do agree with them on one thing, our country is beginning to turn its back on God and now traveling in the direction of a secular humanist nation which means it will be lacking solid ethical foundations.

Dale, I'm curious about what you learned in school. Did you not learn that the pilgrims were fleeing religious persecution at the hands of state sponsored religions? And what, exactly, is revisionist about reading the 1st Amendment as it is written? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Many of our founders were Christians, but so what? They also had the good sense to recognize that the "tyranny of the majority" could quickly demolish everything they worked so hard to build if there weren't safeguards for the minority. This isn't revisionist, this is fact - just as our freedom to practice (or not practice) any religion we sit fit is guaranteed by the Constitution is fact. Why do so many far-right Christians insist on victimizing themselves? No one is saying that you can't practice your faith openly, only that you can't force other people to - why is this so hard to understand?

Nonny, How do you feel about the nation wanting to take god off the dollar bill or off all the buildings in DC? Is this not a violation of ones right and goes against everything being said in this thread. I smell hypocrites from all sides in this thread. Help me understand why it is okay for many to demand God be removed from all aspects, yet our founding fathers put it on our money and in our cornerstone of society, while still allowing church and government to be separate. They used the word God for a very specific reason as everyone has a god, no matter your religion, it just goes by a different name. So why can't people have a right to say "you can't take it out of my life". I concur there is a separation of Church and Government, but you are violating all my rights, when you and everyone else decides it is okay to remove god from the pledge of allegiance, stop it from being said in school, and taking if off our money, and our buildings. All people on the post are saying is our country was founded on the foundation of a God, OUR COUNTRY, not people who are coming to enjoy the freedoms our parents and grandparents who fought to give them that right. I will never shove religion down your throat, so long as you do not remove the word God, from all the history this country is founded on. When someone can finally explain to me why my child can not say the pledge of allegiance in his school then and only then will I agree to stop fighting for my god given rights.

Noony Mouse.....I'm also curious where you learned to read. You got off topic. I did not refer to the religious persecution of the Pilgrims in England or do I want the establishment of a religious state, but thanks for bringing that up. Your comments about the faith of the Pilgrims actually proved my point regarding the religious foundations of America. The real danger is that we will end up with a sterile anti-religious state and go full circle to a form persecution like the Pilgrims fled from. The seeds of intense anti-Christian bigotry as expressed by some on this forum as well as by many through the media is only the tip of the iceburg.

Jerry, The founding fathers did not put "In God We Trust" on our money. It actually wasn't added until 77 years after the signing of the Constitution. "Under God" was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954 to separate us from those "Godless Communists." And no, not everyone does have a God, as some people are atheists, as is their right under our Constitution. I haven't violated any of your rights, Jerry, as I've said a thousand times in this thread people should feel free to worship as they see fit. The problem is, the majority continues to try to silence and shame the minority because they aren't Christian. The majority continues to try to force a Christian God on the minority. I think it is much more interesting and loving to invite many people to the party, so to speak, and ensure that all feel welcome, rather than only ensuring the comfort of a few - even if those few are in the majority. In other words, I think it is much more appropriate to behave in a Christian way rather than just talk about it and play the victim. And the only hypocrisy that I'm seeing is the hypocrisy of those who proclaim a great love for a Christian God, but can't seem to open up their hearts or minds to other human beings.

Dale, Your personal attack on my intellect or ability to read is expected, though sad. You spoke of revisionist history, I responded to that. Your alarmist concerns are duly noted. If this is you behaving in a Christian way, then you've perfectly illustrated my point. Thank you.

Nonny thank you for your response. I actually learned something today so my day is complete. I do not have any issues with any religion, I do not try to change anyones thinking on Christianity, and keep a very sound open mind to all those who have beliefs different than mine. My only issue is, do my rights count when people feel the need to take God out of certain areas. That is my one and only question, which reading thru these posts, I concur, there is hatred and anger, I am just wanting to know if you feel my rights are violated when God is taken away from me.

Noony....I only threw back at you a similar question when you first said you "were curious what you (meaning me) learned in school". You think that wasn't a personal attack on my intellect? So then I asked you a similar question about your reading skills since you had misinterpreted my comments and put different words in my mouth. I was only responding in like kind, but two wrongs don't make a right. .

Dale, I wasn't insulting your intelligence, nor did I change the topic. You called those of us on this thread standing up for the 1st Amendment guarantee of separation of church and state "revisionists." I brought up actual history, and asked how that was revisionist. For all I know, you didn't learn these things.

I've not read such an overtly stupefying comment in a while (Tamara Carlone).......Mankind does not get it's morality from a man-made book, be it a bible, koran, hadith, etc.....Morality is innate. How do you think mankind, as we know it, has survived for the last 100,000 years (a generous minimum), without any religious creations (a fairly recent phenomenon), if mankind did not possess an innate sense of right vs. wrong - we'd never have survived through the endless stone age if we did not possess a natural social method, and need, for morality. Morality does not come a book, a fact that the Religious would dispute. Try to name one thing a religious person would do, that a person who held no faith could not do or perform - you can't. Conversely, name one thing a religious person would do, in the name of faith, that is considered wicked - you hardly even have to think of an example. That religion would attempt to take credit for what comes naturally to Mankind, comes as no surprise - Religion's vanity and endless need for credulity knows no bounds.

Oddly, "judicial activism" is very much a one-way street. When a 5-4 Supreme Court majority overturns a century of campaign finance rules and finds a right to corporate personhood that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, somehow that's NOT activism.

Some judges tend to legislate from the bench and interpret the Constitution according to how they think it should read based on their own personal beliefs rather than its actual wording. They see it as a living, breathing document that is constantly changing to conform with the times rather than fixed and unchanging except by amendment. They steal power from legislators, the executive branch and ultimately the people who should have the final say as to amending the Constitution where it needs changing. That is another way our system of checks and balances breaks down. A balanced and healthy two party system is also an important requirement. We will be in big trouble if one party or the other gains excessive power and total control over all three branches..

Dale, It is the role of the judiciary to interpret the laws as the legislature lays them out. And you are correct, there are different judicial philosophies as to how this is appropriately done and most Justices throughout history have rejected the idea that the Constitution is static and unchanging - there are only two people on the Court who believe this way now, Scalia & Thomas. Words generally have more than one meaning, and the role of the judiciary is to interpret to the best of their ability what the words, as written, mean. As we evolve as people, so too do our understandings of different issues - indeed, there are so many issues that have evolved throughout time that the founders could not possibly fathom. If the Constitution does not evolve with the times then how could we handle such issues as in vitro fertilization, the internet, or intellectual property? If the Constitution does not evolve then an African American person would still be considered 3/5 of a person, women and other minorities wouldn't be afforded the right to vote, and both African Americans and women would be chattel. The beauty of the Constitution & why it has withstood the test of time is its evolution. No one wants to be stuck in 1787 - except Scalia, Thomas, Santorum & a few other right wing radicals.

Herb hit the nail on the head! "Judicial activism" is such a red herring - if someone doesn't like the outcome of a case, it's because of those darn "activist judges!" Thanks to Brown v. Board of Education, the "separate but equal" mythos was debunked - Oh! The horrors! Thanks to Griswold v. Connecticut, we now have a constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy (something most of us absolutely treasure) - Those darn activist judges! Thanks to Lawrence v. Texas, two adults may engage in private, consensual, non-commercial sexual activity - How dare they!
Now let's take a look at the other side of the coin. Thanks to Dred Scott v. Sanford, the badges of slavery and horrifying acts of violence and torture were maintained for more than 100 more years - Yeah, judicial restraint is so awesome! Thanks to Plessy v. Ferguson, the terrible doctrine of "separate but equal" was enshrined in American history & upheld segregation - So cool! Thanks to Citizens United v. F.E.C., corporate money is now unrestrained in political elections, since that's their right to freedom of speech - What a great idea, now they can straight out buy elections & politicians!
Yes, "judicial activism" is such a problem.

Typo... Nonny very sorry about that.

Scot, I'm sorry if it seemed that I was responding to you. I couldn't agree with you more. I was actually responding to Tamara, and her completely inappropriate response to those of us trying to have a productive conversation (I'm going to remedy this now). In fact, it is obvious to me that you do know what you are talking about, and that you choose not to live in ignorance - something that I really appreciate in a conversation!
My thanks to you, Brian, Erin & Jo for your thoughtful & respectful responses.

P.S. the only thing that George Washington feared was British guns.

Scot,

Yes we disagree on both of these subjects, Christian and US history. You have your beliefs and I have mine and neither of us should degrade another for their personal beliefs, which would be protected by the Constitution.

When it comes to Christian beliefs I take the Bible as the word of God, over the years I have read it, studied it and try to apply the principals to my own personal life. I have my own personal interpretation of it and use that as the basis of my belief. Some of the statements you have made come from other sources of writings and completely disagrees with what the Bible says, that is fine if you believe that, but you should not mix that up with what the Bible says and call that fact. I choose to use one source, the Bible as the God inspired word to man and that is the foundation of my belief.

Back to this article, Rick Santorum also believes this way, so I align with him. I see him as a God fearing Bible believing man with strong principals. I happen to agree more with him on this subject of Christianity and the Bible than not.

However, in my view that does not mean he will be a good president. I am not a one issue guy when it comes to selection of a president. When I look at the posts I see attacks on Rick Santorum based on his Christian believes, which is foolishness. The real question is will he be a good president? There are many other factors that will evaluate those skills and abilities. This is not a one issue decision.

Scot,

When it comes to US History we also disagree. In the Christian History issue many years have passed and we are very far removed by time from what happen. So we choose our sources for the basis of our personal beliefs. On both parts it takes faith and the facts are very difficult to quantify.

However, on US History we have recent writings by the actual people who we are talking about. There are plenty of people who write about what they think they said and believed, but I choose to go to the founding fathers own personal writings to form my opinion.

With the Internet, everyone is writing their own thoughts, opinions and beliefs and calling them facts. I do not believe many of the Google searched information I read, many of the authors usually have a hidden agenda.

Back to the article, I believe the founding fathers were strong Christian principled people who used that as a foundation for their work. The evidence is their own personal writings and how God is written into many of our formal documents. We see our current society trying to rewrite history and take God out of everything one step at a time. I believe God has his place in our history and cannot be denied.

Rick Santorum has a strong Christian believe and takes a stand based on those principals. On this issue I believe he aligns with our founding fathers on Religious Freedom for all. But like I said, this is only one issue the real question is: Will he be a good president?

Opinions matter more than facts to most conservatives. If they think the world is flat, by god, it's flat and no amount of evidence will ever change that. You are a gentle and patient man Scott.

Daryl -
Want to really know about the Treaty of Tripoli and the Jefferson Koran? Here is a bit of news few today can recall . . .
.
"By 1801, however, it became clear that the policy of appeasement had failed. The Pasha of Tripoli, who five years earlier had been satisfied with a payment of $56,000, now demanded increasingly larger sums. When they were not forthcoming, piracy resumed! The same held true for the other Barbary states. The Algerians received payments from the U.S. totaling $990,000 plus another $585,000 in 1793 to cover the ransom of 11 American ships. These were extraordinary sums for a nation with a budget of no more than $7 million, but the appetite of the Muslim states seemed to grow evermore insatiable."
.
And now you know some of the background behind the Treaty of Tripoli (blackmail) and Jefferson's Koran (research into the Barbary Pirate Nations).

Nonny,

If you read my whole post I point out what I call fact and what I call belief. I am stating my beliefs and not forcing them on anyone. You have a right to your belief, just like I do. I have no problem with you believing in something different than me.

Rick Santorum is not forcing his religion on anyone; he is just stating what he believes. When it comes to the tough decisions you will completely understand his moral compass and the direction he may take. That is the value you get out of understanding their belief system.

I am looking for in a president who is someone who states their beliefs so I can understand their perspective. As stated many times in my comments this is not a one issue election, and if it was I would not use religion as the one issue. I want to know if the president has the skills and will to correct the course of our country.

I believe we are unsustainable financially, headed into bankruptcy and a nanny state mentality without any personal responsibility. I am looking for a turnaround specialist to get us back on track, but that is my opinion!

Daryl, Thanks for your clarification. I did read your posts in full, but did not quite take away your distinctions between your beliefs & what you call fact. I appreciate your willingness to reiterate.
I wholly disagree with you, however, that Santorum is not forcing his religion on anyone. He has placed his religious beliefs at the center of his campaign and used it as a litmus test to judge other people's faith. In this very article he is quoted as saying, "if we do not reject the idea that government can create rights and then tell you how to exercise those rights, then we will be the generation that lost faith in the greatness of America." I understand this to mean that Santorum is a believer in "natural law," which is a philosophy that maintains that laws are handed down from God, not created by men. This begs the question, which laws would he uphold as President (who is charged with upholding the manmade laws of this country, not biblical law)? I think he's made it quite clear that he will uphold what he believes God's law to be over that of our Constitution, and that is fundamentally dangerous to our freedom. As I've said many times throughout this thread, I have no problems with Christianity, but Lord, save me from your far-right zealots who give an otherwise loving faith a bad name!
I do agree that this country is in trouble economically, but I have a feeling that we differ on what the remedies for that should be. Isn't it wonderful that we can so openly disagree?

When conservatives have no facts or policies to run on, they turn to god, gays, guns, abortion - and now birth control. Conservatives have reduced themselves to a bunch of old, white men who would prefer blacks as slaves, women in the kitchen pregnant, gays in the closet, children seen but not heard and Hispanics on the other side of the Rio Grande.

Until we take money out of politics, Independents will be forced to choose between the lesser of the evils. Based on todays slate of candidates, seniors, women, gays, veterans, minorities, workers and the young will all run screaming into Obama's tent for protection against the insanity the Republicans call their party.

S, We didn't start the arguments about contraception, and we certainly want no part in a renewed "war" on women's health and reproductive rights.

Both have been initiated by Republicans and their supporters: An onslaught of bills in state legislatures, many of which have been signed into law by GOP governors; the so-called "personhood" movement, seeking to assign full Constitutional rights to blastocysts by stating human life begins at "conception;" and so on down the line.

These "personhood" bills, if they become law, would not only outlaw all abortions regardless of circumstance, but potentially make it a crime to use birth control that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg on the uterine wall, and require criminal investigations of miscarriages.

Then, when these possibly-unintended consequences are mentioned, supporters double down and remove all doubt that they are as opposed to contraception as they are to abortion. At least, any form of contraception that might be covered under health insurance plans offered by employers.

I hesitate to ask what you think of the bill in Virginia that will likely be signed by Gov. Bob McDonnell (on everyone's short list for GOP Vice Presidential nominee), mandating ultrasounds for any woman seeking an abortion -- which means that for early-stage pregnancies an internal vaginal probe would be required; an invasive, non-medically-necessary procedure doctors would be forced to perform. Are you OK with that, S? If so, why?

Right on S,

Santorum supports contraception; voted for Title X - which supports contraception. End of story.

Your points are spot on:
1. National Security; won't be discussed until another major building comes down. The press just ignores it. Obama defunds it. Israel may or may not drop bombs on Iran, before Iran definitely plans to drop bombs on Israel. USA energy sources/prices swing in the balance.
2. Mention of the 0bama economy is a no-no, because it is so bad. The Leftist media has shut down stories on: U-6 unemployment is at 15%. The Country lost 1.2 million jobs in January, "Job participation" fallen below 64% a shocking new low level. 49% of American households get some sort of direct assistance from the Gov.
The amount of money that the federal government gives directly to Americans has increased by 32 percent since Barack Obama entered the White House. Americans on food-stamps at an all time high. 42% of single mothers are on food-stamps. The percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes has risen to 49.5% in 2009.
Could go on and on. . .
The statistics are a nightmare for the country. Talk about 'wrong direction"

Really?
Just because he once voted for Title X funding doesn't mean he still supports contraceptive choice, he was once pro-choice too. Things change.
“One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” he told an evangelical blog. “Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.’ It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” Yep, Santorum said this.
In an interview in 2006, then-Sen. Santorum said he is "not a believer in birth control." The socially-conservative candidate said birth control harms women.
"I think it's harmful to women; I think it's harmful to society," Santorum said in this interview found by the Washington Post.
And frankly, when a candidate for President wants to take away individual freedoms because of his extreme belief system, that is a major issue since America is supposedly all about individual freedom and liberty - it's fundamental to our way of life. Without it, the terrorists really have won.

Scot,

Many years ago I did my research and theological studies and used them to form my own personal belief system and I continue to read and study to get a deeper understanding. Notice I said personal belief system, I am not here trying to make you change yours, I am just stating what I believe. I have enough trouble trying to keep myself in order to try and tell others what I think they should believe. I am not interested in a theological discussion.

In recent history and actual events that happen we can turn to the founding fathers own writing. I have done plenty of reading and studying of them, in their own words they state their strong belief in God and how they try to do the best they can and feel unworthy of the task before them. I find that humbling and challenging, they are true heroes.

There is a constant movement that is trying to take God out of the founding fathers documents and the many memorials around the US. If you visit and study Washington DC you will see what was put in place by our founding fathers. It is quite a moving experience to stand on the memorial, see their statue and read their words. In every memorial God has a prominent place in the founder’s words inscribed in stone. To me that is a fact!

It's funny how you and your party can overtly attack gays, women, and non-Christians while whining about a lack of civility from the people who are sick and tired of people like you pushing their politics and belief systems down their throats. But then, nobody ever said Republicans aren't the masters of hypocrisy.

oakland, I think you're confusing me with someone else. First, I'm not particularly affiliated with either of the major political parties, but the Dems are the lesser of the two evils IMHO. Also, I am a gay, non-Christian woman. Did you even read my post? I was responding to S's uncivil and completely rude response to anyone on this thread that don't share his ideals.

Nancy, thanks for the warning, my passion for both world history and American history can get out of hand, and I will do everything possible within that "passion" to stop making anymore of my comments "pointed", my comments to Tamara "sorry to burst you bubble" was over the top and quite immature for me to say, and for that I'm truly sorry. Daryl is my favorite blogger he's a smart guy and I truly enjoy debate with him. But yet again I screw up, "the Bible you read" out of line on my part, I should have said the Bible most of western Europe reads was written by the Council of Nacaea. Daryl is a smart guy and for all I know he my speak and read fluent Aramaic. I do not like comments about my comments that aren't true and I hope that's ok to call someone out on that. Nancy again sorry, in the future I will do my best to tone down the passion... please don't throw me off the island I like it here... thanks for allowing me to post.

Erin, I generally agree with your statement.

The knock on Willard "Mitt" Romney -- one of many -- is that the man has no core principles other than wealth, that he will do or say anything to any group to get elected. Such a man is inherently weak, no matter what one thinks of his intelligence or business acumen. Grover Norquist is positively salivating about this -- to him, the GOP in Congress should be in command, and the President merely needs "enough working digits" to sign what Congress gives him (starting with Rep. Paul Ryan's budget, and going downhill from there).

Rick Santorum represents a far greater danger -- the man actually believes the things he is saying, and will wield the power of the Presidency as a bludgeon to try and impose change on society to make it conform to those beliefs, regardless of the people's wishes. Because that "good place in his heart" allows no room for doubt or dissent; God's Word is not to be challenged, merely obeyed. Should Santorum win, there'd likely be enough Tea Party evangelicals in the 113th Congress (plus weaklings who follow the crowd to ensure their own reelection) to make large portions of the Santorum agenda the law of the land.

Atticus, I concur with the premises of your post...all white yes some we're young and some did not have a lot of money and some did not own slaves that's all

P.S. let's fast forward Feb. 13, 2012 I can't get 6 out of 7 men on the Rochester Hills city council and our mayor to support LGBT rights, HELP! Our mayor screamed out to the audience "I'm a Christian" guess we don't have separation of church and state in RH. If you have time read my editorial in the Patch. Thanks for your post.

Hitler did not say the same thing about Jews as Yvonne is saying. That is the biggest leap of logic I have ever seen. Hitler persecuted the Jews. The Christian right in this country wants to persecute everyone else that does not share in their belief system.

For example, I have seen so many right wing Christian politicians say extremely hateful things about gay people. Blaming gay people for the destruction of marriage. Blaming gay people for the destruction of this nation. Trying to pass laws taking rights away from people. THAT is hateful. And it creates a hateful world for those people to live in. But it must be ok because the Christian right feels that way and it's not persecution when they are trying to incite culture wars against a group of people. Intentionally creating a subclass of human beings is way more like the actions of Hitler and Nazi Germany. It is those right wing Christians who need to take a serious look at how they are trying to demonize a whole subset of society. That is a direct threat to my life on a daily basis as well.

Godwin's Law, S. Look it up. You have completely discredited yourself, and cheapened this discussion, by dragging in the Nazis.

One of the signs suggested for the October 2010 "Rally to Restore Sanity" nailed it:

I MAY NOT AGREE WITH YOU, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE YOU'RE NOT HITLER.

Repeat that as many times as required, until it sinks in.

You're welcome! And I Couldn't of said this better myself.

p.s. Jefferson freed all his slaves before he died, and died a broken hearted man because our country had slavery. There is a statement of his that ties into a statement on the Jefferson Memorial about slavery.

Scot, I appreciate your studies into Jefferson and your posts.

Do you care to enlighten others here with equal in-depth facts on his contributions at his own expense to get a public education system going? Why he thought it so important? And also the Jefferson Bible? Many lately like to cloak themselves in Jefferson quotes and in my opinion missrepresent what he stood for.

I think it's a mistake to say that the far left movement wants to take take God out of everything. I think it is more appropriate to say that we simply don't want people to be excluded because they don't believe in the Christian ideal.
http://youtu.be/vh9LLOQ8vpA
If these two can get along, why can't we all?

Cheers mate! These ideals need to be brought to light more often.

Women, people of color and non-christians don't count. Just ask them.

USA News: Study says racists and conservatives are dumb
"Researchers from Ontario, Canada’s Brock University have been slaving over test results to come to the conclusion that many not-so-scientifically-inclined have said for ages — both right-wing thinkers and racists alike are kind of dumb."
http://rt.com/usa/news/conservative-ideologies-science-group-477/

People who want to rewrite history to reflect their ideology (misrepresenting or ignoring anything that would disprove their whitewash), are ruder.

An enlightened, mature society should be well beyond the Stalinist concept of "The winners write the history books."

Jordan,

Because you asked, I will define “Christian” as I see it, remember this is my opinion and my own personal believe. It is to be "Christ Like", I believe he is the son of God and put on this earth to set an example on being sinless. There has never been a person who can match this sinless state, only Christ did. We all have come short of this example, but God put this in place to set the standard, which is my belief and what I state as Christian principals.

When you look at the 10 commandments they are directed at man and his relationship with God, many of the commandments are the basis of our US laws. But the best rule is to "do unto others as you wish they do unto you". Sounds like a challenge and I believe it is part of the Christian principals.

Christians believe no one can meet the standard Christ has outlined in the Bible, however we all try. It is a lifelong personal struggle and challenges to meet the Christ standard told to us as parables in the Bible. The Bible clearly tells Christians we are all short of the standard, but gave us a path to forgiveness from God.

I see our founding fathers as flawed great men who went through the tough times, challenges, kept the faith and made a real change in how a government should govern. Freedom of religion was very important to them. This is why the founding fathers put Religious Freedom into the constitution and I believe a core Christian Principal, free will.

Jordan:

Although this nation was not founded as a “Christian Nation”, and the framers took great care to ensure that citizens were free from governmental interference in the expression of their personal beliefs, whatever they may be, it would be hard to deny that Christian ethos played a part in the direction this country took going forward as over 80% of the population at that time identified themselves as being Christian.

So, although we were and are not a “Christian Nation”, at the time of the founding and for much of the 18th century, we were certainly a “Nation of Christians".

Marty,

You are probably right; I might have pushed the limit asking these questions. However I believe there are many who post here on a hidden agenda, I have had plenty of dialogs with you and have enjoyed the discussions, and I feel it has been open and honest. I did not mean to intimidate you, I have enjoyed our conversations.

I see attacks and people making noise trying to confuse the conversation. I wanted to know peoples motivation for commenting on this post as others are trying to decide who they are going to vote for.

I was not intimidated in the least. I answered it as fast as I could. Then I had to come back and make sure I was truthful. Iff my guy wins I will have someone to vote FOR instead of against. Many of the partial identified here are civil. Many are not.

I will say that a childish effort to vote up the least of the candidates such as what happened a while back with Ralph Nader during a Democratic primary could be in the works. Like then the "others" have their candidate.

Daryl, Marty, it's called in my business "free advertising" an opportunity with this kind of blog to use "free ink" to sell a point. My opinion who cares "free country", Daryl it did come off sounding if you don't vote don't speak and if your not in the Republican party why are you even commentating on this blog? I see this blog as something that has evolved into a "human rights" and "free to express an opinion regardless of one's religious beliefs" and Daryl your attempt to refocus the descussion... limit who can participate only throws gasoline on fire and does a disservice to those who support a more "centered" Republican party.

1. Yes
2. Hellz No

This is allowed now because of the duplicity of Michigan Republicans in not only taking $10 million in taxpayer dollars to pay for their closed primary, but trying to hide that fact by printing bogus "Democratic Party" ballots that won't be counted or used, and ensuring that which ballot we choose next week will be in the public record for the next two years (transparent attempt to intimidate independents and Democrats into not doing what we did in 2000).

My agenda is not at all hidden -- I am open and proud to be an Opinionated Progressive Geek. Live with it.

1) Can't, as I am in Germany this week and Italy next week.
2) I do support President Obama, and currently plan on voting for him in November.

3) The "agenda" behind posting on this site (or do you mean this article in particular?) is to be a part of the conversation. When the conversation going on within the Republican party is (for example) whether to eliminate 3 cabinets or 5, it does the public well for a rational person to point out how bad that idea is.

The conservatives have become radicalized, and I feel it is partly due to the type of thinking your comment displays (that this conversation should simply be between Republican voters). That conservatives need not have dialogue with non-conservatives, so they can stay within their bubble. Well, that bubble needs to be burst whenever possible, and that is the "agenda" behind progressives commenting on these types of threads. The bubble is harming our country. I will fight it whenever possible.

I commented on this thread for the same exact reason. Who I'm voting for, what primary I'm voting in, and my general political affiliation are irrelevant when it comes to my strong belief in separation of church and state.

Scot,

I totally understand what a brokered convention is and did not put that into my questions that I was asking the group. You are correct, that could be an outcome of this nomination process. Yes, your point is quite clear and glad you added that option to this discussion.

Lianne,

Thanks for sharing this about your grandfather; I can see why he is your mentor.

You are correct, I am an engineer and business man and my approach comes from that background and is the basis of my logic. Not all see the world my way, which is fine with me; I am just stating my opinion and respecting other perspectives. My goal is not to force people to my view; I am just presenting my view my way, if someone agrees that is fine, but not required.

By the way, my mentor is my dad; he was a long time engineer at GM and approaches life with that engineer logic. He is a strong, honest, humble God fearing man that has taught in the Church for many years on top of his career as an engineer. He has a real knack in presenting his ideas in a very interesting way; I have learned so much from him and still do to this day. It is great to have mentors!

BTW - active Catholic. But I actually think some in this party are to the right of the Catholic Church. And that's saying a lot!

And, to qualify further, I believe Santorum was talking at times more specifically about prenatal testing. Still, I wouldn't want to deny families in preparing for what kind of care they may need once the child is born.

Yvonne,

In reflection I can understand how my questions pushed the limit, my intent was not to stop conversations, just try and understand the motivation. You are right to point that out.

Atticus,

In reflection I can understand how my questions pushed the limit. You are right to point that out.

The founding fathers, like all of us, were flawed men. We can find an issue with anyone, just like you point out ownership of slaves as a real problem with them. Many did own slaves, others did not and many made corrections in life to fix that issue and others did not. Put yourself in their time zone, not excusing owning slaves, and view the world as they did at that time. Slave ownership was legal then and we all are glad it was changed.

Future generations will look at us in the same view with some of the things we call normal today will be viewed as offensive in the future. All things change, all are flawed and the measure I use is “did they improve the situation in the long run?”

I concur. I do not know him or his issues as he is not the one I am following. My saying always has been and will always be, believe nothing of what you read, half to a quarter of what you hear, and no more than half of what you see. Thus with this said the common theme on this thread seems to be against those who believe in god, in my opinion. Separating Church and Government is Crucial to our success as a nation. But in my opinion, when you start attacking like is going on in this thread, we get to religious wars. Why do we have Wars, 9 out 10, in my opinion, created by and for religious issues. My greatest fear is we are inching closer and closer to this. If i was an outsider looking in and had no idea of what this thread was about, I would say we already are there.

Jerry, I think many of us on this thread are against religious zealots, not Christians, in general. Unfortunately, the zealots get the most notice. There are many people of faith who are good, loving, tolerant people, and I haven't seen anyone on this thread say otherwise. I have stated myself, and read other posts, that show disdain for the zealots, however. I think Santorum is one of those people, which is why I find him to be so dangerous to our political system. He advocates for the Bible as the rule of law in this country, something that is directly at odds with our constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, and that frightens me and many others. I do find it exhausting, however, that those of us on here strongly arguing for the separation of church and state are constantly having to defend ourselves against attacks that we are Godless liberals. Just because I don't want the government shoving religion down my throat does not mean I am attacking Christians - it means that I am an American who believes in my constitutional right to freedom of religion.
As to your question from above asking if I felt your rights are violated when God is taken away from you - I don't really think God can be "taken away from you." In my view, God isn't in the DC monuments, our money, or our churches, rather God is in our hearts and minds. God is everywhere, and if we need to see God printed on everything to remind us of that, then we aren't very God-loving after all.

Thanks for your well thought our response Noony. I am a very passionate person, however when someone like yourself shows respect like you have I greatly appreciate having good quality conversations with you. I do not see you as a Godless Liberal so my apologies for the generalizations. The issue with threads is just that, there is so much to digest and get your thoughts down in under 500 characters. With me, i need to be face to face to have discussions to allow for understanding the real issue. I do jump to conclusions on many occasions and many times i will not respond because there is just not the right tone or the right format to do. Again, I appreciate your comments and understanding.

Thank you, Jerry. I am enjoying our dialogue. I do agree, these types of threads do offer quite a bit to digest, and it often takes multiple posts to clarify and re-clarify to actually make oneself understood. The thing that's missing is tone. One can rarely tell if someone is being condescending or lighthearted simply by reading their words. It is a challenge. Anyway, I appreciate your commitment to having an open mind and open heart.

Daryl, thank you for the kind words the other day. I can only speak for myself here.
While the thread has gone off course several times I think your are seeing what a polarizing figure Santorum can be, at least for me.His stand against homosexuals is very well documented and his recent comments regarding pre-natal health have a great deal to do with that.He then claims to base his assertions on his interpretation of the Bible.Like I said before, if I was looking for a minister it wouldn't be in Washington D.C., I don't happen to believe he is correct in his understanding of the Bible.
I too would like the conversation to be less visceral, but when a politician such as himself hits those hot button topics,well,we have what we have. Everyone feels threatened.
Unfortunately,with all the big money in politics these days, I would like to think the government works for us, but do they really? Santorum was a lobbyist for a coal company.I believe he is part of the problem, not the solution.

Daryl, comments about hating LGBT people are especially important when speaking about Santorum. He has a long history of anti-gay stances and commentary. That is not something anyone is making up. It is a fact, as the words have come directly out of his mouth. Maybe that is not an issue you care about or that affects you, but it absolutely affects me and my life.

Secondly, I never said the founding fathers were bad people or that people shouldn't see them as heroes. What I was pointing out is that they were flawed people just like the rest of us. I think it is important to remember that when this country was founded, not everyone was considered equal, and that as a nation we have really had to grow and struggle to come where we are today.

Thirdly, what I don't appreciate about Republican candidates is their intense focus on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion. I think using those issues as wedge issues to appeal to a certain demographic that will vote for them is irresponsible and takes attention away from the very serious challenges our country faces. It also pits people against each other in heated debates that boil down to one's religious beliefs. That is extremely polarizing and, quite frankly a lot of those dialogues become hateful.

At the end of the day, both parties are guilty of being stuck in a childish deadlock that is not helping any of us. I'm holding my breath as I watch my entire generation's dreams being sunk by a bunch of adult babies.

All people are important and should not be discriminated against including LGBT, women, men, black, yellow, red, white, etc. My point is we are all created equal and should be treated as such. Government puts in special rules for special circumstances to fix immediate bad situations, when the conditions change; they never adjust the rules, just make more rules.

How about the American Indian? The people who moved here really took advantage of them. They were a soft hearted people who did not even comprehend what land ownership was, a cultural thing. The sleeping giant woke up, took action and many people died.

It has dawned on me why there is discourse between the Christians and the Non-Christians. It is a cultural thing and we approach things differently. Both are good people and want good things for our family, friends and all who truly need help.

Christians look to Christ as their perfect example. Christians believe all are flawed and come short of the standard and openly point that out. This is done to hold accountability to each other, it is not fun to hear where you do not meet the standard, but in the Christians mind this is normal.

The Non-Christian looks to individuals who they admire and hold them as the standard. In this case there are many diverse standards that people measure themselves to with multiple opinions.

Hence the rub, we approach things differently. Let’s understand our differences and have a civil conversation.

Did you have any chocolate left? It is hard doing Ash Wednesday when you did not have your Paczkis. One meal of light fish and rice for the day, that will cleanse my soul.

Went for Lemon and Raspberry - and they were great.
Was trying to "sweeten" the conversation. ;-)
Thanks Jerry.

Facts are hard for many to believe Marty, but you put the nail in the coffin. I would add, inflation will be what it was in the late 70's and early 80's before we get back to the 90's

Answer this question why are there some in the Republican party that support the "dumbing down of America?" Support teaching the Garden of Eden in public school science class? Why are some in the "party" that would support building national science Museums w/public money that show man a the dinosaurs lived on the plant at the same time? Why does this "party" want to throw out the last 400 years of scientific discovery... if we want to compete in a world economy would it not be a lot smarter not to elect Santorum, would it not be a better idea to vote for those who do believe in science.

I said "some" in the Republican party... and yes the economy should be the top priority, or by 2020 or will be all tradeing in Renminbi's, but what we teach our kids in our public schools in by book is just as important for America's future.

Yvonne for President!

Hahahaaaa! You're too funny, Atticus, though I worry about the backlash of some of the more hyperbolic posters on this thread, I do appreciate your gesture!

Thanks, Scot. I do appreciate your post & will most definitely check out the Mitt in Utica post you mentioned.
I really do think it's a shame that the Republican party has been hijacked by the extremists. And I tend to agree, Santorum's extreme views scare me to no end - even scarier is the fact that he has so many people buying into him.
Again, thanks for your posts, and your recommendations.

Dale, I stopped reading the moment you started in about Hitler. You've ruined any credibility you may have thought you had. See Godwin's Law (Thanks, Herb!). You aren't the first to throw out Hitler in this conversation, but I do hope you are the last, because that kind of hyperbole is counterproductive to any real chance at conversation. As I said to your little buddy S, don't assume that you have any idea what is going on in my mind, you have no idea.

This whole post is so self-serving, Dale. Not to mention completely out of line.
1st - No where did Yvonne "whine on behalf of our enemies and vilify the United States as the real demons of the world?" Looking at other perspectives actually provides one with more perspective, not less. It provides a more full view of the issues & an understanding of how to better attack the underlying problems. The type of one-way thinking you are promoting is short-sighted at best.
2nd - There are a lot of assumptions & no real arguments in your post. Just a lot of self-aggrandizing rhetoric backed up with probablys and I bets. Not particularly strong on the argument front, there.
3rd - Attempting to shame & demean someone in such a way as to compare them Hitler/Tojo is the truly reckless thinking. Are you even aware of what the hallmarks of fascism are, or are you just trying to win your point? Nothing about Yvonne's posts have even remotely resembled fascistic thinking or rhetoric, so you didn't win any points, but you did lose credibility, as Yvonne noted.
4th - To assume, once again, that liberals have "fluffy and compassionate feelings" for terrorists is, once again, reckless thinking and counterproductive. And, I would like to note, that for someone who purports to be such a God-loving Christian, perhaps you should practice a little more compassion and humility. As I said before, if this is you behaving in a Christian way, then you've perfectly illustrated my point. Thank you.

Being someone who has not only studied WWII extensively, but global political systems, there is absolutely no grounds on which to compare anyone on this thread to Hitler or anyone associated with the Axis powers. I see this comparison made on every single comment thread when people start disagreeing. Both liberals and conservatives are guilty of throwing the Hitler comparison at their political rivals. The bottom line is that we are all Americans. Comparing your fellow countrymen and women to Hitler or the Nazis is not only wrong, but grossly overused in political discourse.

Yeah, you were attacked...poor victim you.

I can see that trying to reason with you, Dale, is useless. No one has attacked you, though you've certainly felt entitled to attack all liberals with absolute hatred. Nor has anyone said that America isn't the best country in the world. Please try to comprehend the words as they are written rather than inserting overly-emotional and irrational meanings behind them. It is this kind of rhetoric that gives conservatives a bad name. Now calm down and take a deep breath.

I see the leftist sharks are still trolling on here and attacking anyone who dares to have an opposing opinion. Keep swimming in you delusions my friends!

"Liberalism is a mental disorder"...Dr. Savage.

You're so right, Nonny, it's a page out of gwb playbook - when one can't win on the merits of one's argument because it's lacking any basis in reality or fact, then attack attack attack & then play the victim. No wonder we can't have actual dialogue with the extremists of the right-wing, there is no rhyme or reason, just "gut feelings." When will the sane Republican's take back their party? I miss those good, honest debates about actual things with people who actually know how to read and know actual facts.

Hahahahaaaaaa! Herb, you kill me! I'll bet that's a whole other kind of merit badge, the "I've been ignored by a liberal!"

Herb....I see, if I point out that you all attempted to marginalize and degrade my opinion with your liberal elitist brand of condescention because I did not agree with Yvonne's love our terrorist enemies post, I am claiming to be a martyr. Nice try! Liberals only agree with freedom of speech as long as it is their's alone. Please keep ignoring me going forward, but I will not ignore you. If you don't like opinions which you don't agree with, I guess you can close your mind and simply ignor them.

Amen to that, Jerry! Be safe out there!