Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Liberals Should be Nervous about Santorumís Super Tuesday
Global Comment ^ | March 8, 2012 | Kristin Rawls

Posted on 03/07/2012 3:44:17 PM PST by NYer

When I heard yesterday that Sarah Palin was already talking about a potential presidential bid in 2016, I saw the writing on the wall: The Republican establishment isn’t even pretending to care about 2012 anymore. That an Obama win seems certain despite Obama’s middling approval ratings is an embarrassment to the Republican Party, to be sure. The people in the trenches care, certainly, but the Party bigwigs? Not so much.

Even so, those who are sounding alarms about the end of the Party as we know it need to calm down and remember 2004. By the end of George W. Bush’s first term, his approval ratings were also middling. It’s true that John Kerry’s frontrunner status was clearer by this point in 2004, but it’s also true that he was a terrible candidate who was never going to become president of the United States. People felt he was stiff, elitist and out of touch with so-called “ordinary Americans.” He couldn’t do either of the two things Americans liked to see in an incumbent: (1) deliver a charismatic stump speech or (2) establish a folksy, we-could-drink-beer-together affect. Sound familiar?

I am convinced that Mitt Romney is filling the same role in 2012 that John Kerry did then: mediocre and bland filler candidate who will not win, but who can minimize embarrassment to the Party, which will double down and groom one or two more serious candidates next time around. And while establishment Republicans – and urban Americans – may be more comfortable with a business shill (Romney) than a Christian fundamentalist (Santorum), it’s post-neocon Christian fundamentalists – that is, Tea Partiers – who have energized the Republican Party since 2008. And in 2012, if you can’t even manage to excite the Party’s influential evangelical base, you’re not going to win.

That’s why those of us who value foundational ideals like the separation of church and state should welcome Romney’s inevitable nomination. If it isn’t Romney, it’s going to be the Christian fundamentalist, Rick Santorum. And Rick Santorum might actually win. Unlike Romney, he has growing momentum in his favor. He is comparatively likeable, maybe even charismatic. Plus, the Christian Right is no longer the fringe movement it was in the 1980’s, when Ronald Reagan teamed up with Jerry Falwell to politicize conservative Christians. It is now one of the most energetic contingents within the Party.

Because of this, I was particularly disgusted when I learned that Michigan liberals prompted by the Daily Kos were turning out the vote for Santorum. And it was all in fun, meant to be hilarious and clever. And it was harmless, right? Because an extremist like Santorum could never assume the Presidency of the United States? Right?

Well, I’m sure all the hilarity had Santorum laughing all the way to Super Tuesday. Today, it is impossible to guess how much of an impact so-called “Operation Hilarity” had on last night’s results. All we know is that Santorum continues in the race. And that Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich may drop out of the race any day now, ensuring the possibility of an even more meteoric rise for the one-time joke candidate best known for provoking the ire of Dan Savage. If nothing else, last night made it clear that, even if Romney remains the frontrunner, we will need to start thinking about the possibility that Santorum could secure the nomination.

Rather than continuing to treat Santorum as a joke, we need to consider the real possibility that he could actually become President of the United States. Make no mistake: I still believe that Obama is likely to win the election, even though much can change over the next eight months. But the fact that Santorum could get close should make us all very nervous. Again, because he might win, and in fact, I think he is more likely to win than the current frontrunner, who is universally disliked and energizes no one. Let it roll around in your mind for a moment: Rick Santorum could ascend to our nation’s Presidency.

“Operation Hilarity” confirmed what I have intuitively believed for some time: Most liberal Americans do not understand the Christian Right at all. Honestly, I am not even convinced that most conservatives do. Indeed, I find it very hard to believe that the people showing up in droves to support Santorum fully understand his brand of extremism.

Consider that Santorum, more than any other candidate, has pushed to make contraception a matter of national debate in 2012. Contraception. I was rather alarmed when I saw Vyckie Garrison of the popular ex-fundamentalist blog, No Longer Quivering, write, “Quiverfull goes mainstream” in response to the debate. Quiverfull is a particularly rigid movement within conservative Christianity that pressures families to forego any form of family planning in favor of “trusting God to bless you with as many children as he sees fit.” And Santorum has made it very clear that he shares Quiverfull ideals about contraception.

But this isn’t the quaint conviction of a small fringe group. No, it’s a worldview steeped in the Dominionist project to “take Dominion of the earth for Christ” through legal and electoral channels and, when necessary, through force. The American pastors who flirt with the idea of criminalizing LGBT people and who promote it as policy in Africa? Quiverfull. The people who insist that the founding fathers were all evangelical Christians who never intended the separation of church and state? Quiverfull. The people for whom it is controversial for women to go to college and/or work outside the home? Quiverfull. The people who fear that public schools are evil, humanist cesspools that will turn their children against God? Quiverfull Quiverfull Quiverfull.

And as the object of “Operation Hilarity,” Santorum flirts with Quiverfull ideology all the time. His children are homeschooled. He opposes contraception. He endorses traditional gender roles. He insists that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. And most mainstream Americans write him off as the product of what they think they know about conservative Christianity. They see a man influenced by James Dobson and who can’t possibly be all that dangerous.

But Focus on the Family is not what we are talking about when we consider Santorum’s politics. We should be looking more closely at R.J. Rushdoony, a man little known outside the Christian Right who is nevertheless considered the father of Christian Dominionism, and his writings make Dobson look like a liberal. It’s true, as a fundamentalist Calvinist, he would never have trusted Santorum’s Catholicism. But the base that once supported Michelle Bachmann, who cites Rushdoony as one of her biggest influences, has become galvanized behind Rick Santorum. Rushdoony called for death by hanging for “homosexuals” and “unchaste women” in his Institutes of Biblical Law, published in the 1970’s. Think about that for a minute. Then, you arrogant Democrat hacks, we can have a chat about how “hilarious” it would be for Rick Santorum to win the nomination.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: gingrich; idiocy; lunacy; paul; romney; santorum

1 posted on 03/07/2012 3:44:22 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...
Consider that Santorum, more than any other candidate, has pushed to make contraception a matter of national debate in 2012.

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list


2 posted on 03/07/2012 3:45:55 PM PST by NYer (He who hides in his heart the remembrance of wrongs is like a man who feeds a snake on his chest. St)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Santorum, more than any other candidate, has pushed to make contraception a matter of national debate in 2012.

Obama is a candidate also.

Stephanopoulos brought the topic up at the debate in January. Obviously, he was told to do so by the White House. Then Obama jumped in with governmental action that shoved contraception down people's throats.

But -- sure! -- let's just say that Santorum made this an issue.

3 posted on 03/07/2012 3:51:13 PM PST by ClearCase_guy ("And the public gets what the public wants" -- The Jam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Just one problem with this article: Where does it say separation of church and state in the Constitution? (hint... it doesn’t say it anywhere.) Otherwise a nice article.


4 posted on 03/07/2012 3:51:30 PM PST by johnd201
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

He’s got a point... Specially for the Democrats voting in our primaries.


5 posted on 03/07/2012 3:53:16 PM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Just one problem with this article: Where does it say separation of church and state in the Constitution? (hint... it doesn’t say it anywhere.) Otherwise a nice article.


6 posted on 03/07/2012 3:54:19 PM PST by johnd201
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Lessee if FR’s Rick haters can resist the temptation to jump on this thread and join Kristin in denouncing ‘Santorum’s brand of extremism’.


7 posted on 03/07/2012 3:55:07 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Yeow, where to begin.

His children are homeschooled. He opposes contraception. He endorses traditional gender roles. He insists that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. And most mainstream Americans write him off as the product of what they think they know about conservative Christianity.

I'm not a Catholic or even a particularly good Christian and I agree with pretty much everything there but the contraception thing but I am smart enough to know that he isn't intending to outlaw my choice on the matter. I'd Love to hear the writer's description of what "mainstream Americans" are.
8 posted on 03/07/2012 3:58:11 PM PST by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
In my experience, when the media talks about "mainstream Americans" they are referring to people who expect abortion on demand, confiscatory taxes for anyone except themselves, no death penalty, all guns outlawed, ban on Christian sentiment expressed in public, and prohibition of all fossil fuels ...

... You know: the stuff that everyone agrees on -- mainstream, middle-of-the-road, Motherhood and apple pie stuff.

9 posted on 03/07/2012 4:01:55 PM PST by ClearCase_guy ("And the public gets what the public wants" -- The Jam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: johnd201
Where does it say separation of church and state in the Constitution?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not in the constitution. But it explicitly states there will be no "established" State Religion.

10 posted on 03/07/2012 4:05:32 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I am sick of stupid commentators saying Obama is likely to win. He is not. Many Americans are desperate to vote him out. I stop reading when I see that crap. No one can prognosticate that in March the election is 250 days away!


11 posted on 03/07/2012 4:06:10 PM PST by Williams (Honey Badger Don't Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

She’s clueless. Kerry’s persona was that of the gold-digger and creepy lothario, whereas Romney’s image is that of the self-made business tycoon and devoted family man. While Santorum is my guy, my sense is that his gloomy gus persona is even less charismatic than Romney’s. In both cases we’re relying on candidates with clean personal backgrounds to carry the day. My hope is that Santorum will galvanize the Catholic and Italian American vote on the basis of pure identity politics - the second Catholic and first Italian American to have a shot at the White House.


12 posted on 03/07/2012 4:11:06 PM PST by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“Quiverfull”

Never heard of ‘em. But if the liberal blogger who wrote this is fearful of them, I’m going to learn more.

AOBTW, the GBLTs (pronounced `giblets’) are powerful, well organized, and not afraid to demand noncriticism and acceptance for their group identity defined by the manner of their perverted body plumbing practices.

Rick Santorum campaign ad:

“NOBODY expects the Pennsylvania Inquisition!”

If lefties are scared he might win, that’s good. That’s very good.


13 posted on 03/07/2012 4:12:36 PM PST by elcid1970 ("Deport all Muslims. Nuke Mecca now. Death to Islam means freedom for all mankind.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

“”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; The phrase “Separation of Church and State” is not in the constitution. But it explicitly states there will be no “established” State Religion.”

But the language says “Congress.” Several states had “established” religions at the time and continued to have them after the passage of the bill of rights. Other states did not. The establishment clause means just what it says: “Congress [the Feds]” can’t do anything in the area of establishment of religion. OTOH, the state governments, are free to establish or disestablish a religion (see the 10th amendment).

This is completely consistent with the context of “establishment of religion” language—the English Civil War (the word “antidisestablishmentarianism” comes out of that conflict and refers to folks who were against dis-establishing the Church of England).

So it’s fair to say that the 1st amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing a religion. But the states were allowed to and did. And the feds weren’t allowed to interfere.

Numerous quotes from the authors of the Bill of Rights may be found to support this rather clear interpretation of the 1st amendment.


14 posted on 03/07/2012 4:32:59 PM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I’m not sure why the author is using the term Christian Fundamentalist. Is that supposed to be the new boogeyman? Is a Christian Fundamentalist any more frightening than a Mormon, Atheist, Marxist, or even a follower of Black Liberation theology?

I am very active in Christian circles, write for several sites and support a multitude of ministries. I have never read an article or heard a sermon about the Church instituting a theocracy in the US, or even hinting at a desire to do so. But I have heard many Pastors who support a limited government. When the government is forcing individuals, organizations and even churches to make immoral decisions, they have become a state religion.

Since the country owes the very freedoms we had to a largely Christian group of Founders and political leaders, the Church is no threat to freedom.

In fact, I have no fear of people who love God. However, I have great concern about those in government that think they are god.


15 posted on 03/07/2012 4:33:44 PM PST by Kandy Atz ("Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want for bread.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

[ I am sick of stupid commentators saying Obama is likely to win. He is not. Many Americans are desperate to vote him out. I stop reading when I see that crap. No one can prognosticate that in March the election is 250 days away! ]

True... Obama hasnt even started spending the BILLION in his campaign coffers YET..
The brain wash hasnt even started yet..
Not to speak of the massive FREE sound bites and photo ops he will get.. on TV Mags Radio and the internet..

Could be you are ignorant of the duplicity corruption and self centered american public..
They elected Zero with gusto and refuse to see “the Truth”..

American women are generally dumb politically as posts..
The democrats have and will continue to “MINE” this stupidity.. both with men and women..

To AMerica it will be the proverbially rich guy(Romney)[capitalist] greed monger ..versus.. the po old darky, put upon nappy headed socialist with good intentions..

If you think 60% of AMerica are NOT eye rolling droolers politically you are a PollyAnna.. American colleges have been graduating stone Socialists for decades.. And republicans whom sent their kids to such schools could care less..

The chickens have home to roost and I’m not sure they are chickens anymore..
They have evolved into drug addled self centered parasites bent on getting what others produced..
Like Vampires, Tape-Worms or Ticks/fleas even Intestinal worms..

You want to play the Glad game?... i.e. PollyAnna


16 posted on 03/07/2012 4:35:52 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla
Because of this, I was particularly disgusted when I learned that Michigan liberals prompted by the Daily Kos were turning out the vote for Santorum. And it was all in fun, meant to be hilarious and clever. And it was harmless, right? Because an extremist like Santorum could never assume the Presidency of the United States? Right?

That's not quite the whole story. Romney was counting on those votes for himself and had people going door to door asking for them. My liberal sister in Livonia said that the Romney people told her that they didn't care if she was a democrat as long as she was willing to help stop Santorum's "extreme agenda". My union aunt was complaining of all the Romney calls she was getting too.

Its also important to note that it was primarily Romney supporters in Michigan who fought to keep the primary open. Our governor, Rick Snyder was interviewed on election night and complained about Santorum's "dirty tricks". What he didn't say was that he himself is only in office due to democrat crossovers voting for him. At the end of the interview he said that he wants the primary to be kept open. Now why would he want the primary to remain open in the face of dirty tricks? At the end of the day, Romney won the most liberal areas of the state and Santorum won the conservative areas.

Also of importance is the fact that the Michigan GOP is largely owned by the SEIU and were angry that they were outplayed at their own game.

See post #9 for clear evidence of GOP SEIU connections

Its also important for republicans to remember that Michigan is a forced union state. That means that plenty of conservatives are forced into unions but that doesn't make us liberal. I myself did several years in the AFL-CIO but have never been anything but a rock solid conservative. I live in a rural area and have plenty of UAW neighbors who are just as conservative as I am. Ronald Regan specifically targeted union democrats here in Michigan and they became the core of the Reagan democrats. In 08, Duncan Hunter tried to speak to the UAW but was shut out by union leadership. Hunter is as rock solid conservative as they come.

Its important to note that there is a conservative movement growing within the private sector UAW and they actually walk the walk. The head of the conservative UAW group (Terry Bowman) actually testified against union political fundraising on capitol hill last month. If the GOP doesn't capitalize on union conservatives they are stupid. Personally I'd rather see them talking to private sector unionists than pandering to the public sector unions and illegal aliens.

UAW Member: Union Workers 'Need to Embrace' Right-to-Work Laws
17 posted on 03/07/2012 4:36:05 PM PST by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

Another FReeper proposes that we get into the habit of using the term “Protection of church from state”.

Its accurate.


18 posted on 03/07/2012 4:38:39 PM PST by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: johnd201
Just one problem with this article: Where does it say separation of church and state in the Constitution?

I don't think that's the point she's trying to make.

She's trying to warn fellow libtards that Rick is gaining and might actually win the nomination if Gingrich and Paul drop out. She figures the 'tards are safe if Mittens is the nominee. But she's not so sure if Rick is. She's afraid he might catch on with the sheeple.

Rather than continuing to treat Santorum as a joke, we need to consider the real possibility that he could actually become President of the United States. Make no mistake: I still believe that Obama is likely to win the election, even though much can change over the next eight months. But the fact that Santorum could get close should make us all very nervous. Again, because he might win, and in fact, I think he is more likely to win than the current frontrunner, who is universally disliked and energizes no one. Let it roll around in your mind for a moment: Rick Santorum could ascend to our nation’s Presidency.

19 posted on 03/07/2012 4:59:29 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Same as when the media talks about “Independents”, they are usually referring to white, middle-class suburbanites who tend to be on the socially liberal side. Romney will do better with these voters than Santorum.

However, there is another, larger group of blue-collar Independents, once known as Reagan Democrats. These are the people that Santorum appeals to in Appalachia and the Midwest.


20 posted on 03/07/2012 4:59:29 PM PST by Retired Greyhound (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

9 of the original states had established religions.

The last was disestablished in 1833.

Surely you do not suggest that should be an issue today?

I know there are some Catholics who think that Monarchy is still an acceptable form of government. (An opinion I do not share)

But an establish “faith” in an existing state would seem impossible without absolute subjection. That of course is what the left proposes. Establishment of Atheism as a state religion and Communism as the form of government.

What do you think would happen should any power try to pull that off in Texas?? hee hee hee


21 posted on 03/07/2012 5:00:09 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Appropriate statement.


22 posted on 03/07/2012 5:02:43 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kandy Atz

-——I’m not sure why the author is using the term Christian Fundamentalist-——

Code word for liberals that mean white racist hateful gun loving bible believing patriotic males who want to impose their religion on America

These people don’t actually exist but in tiny numbers, but in the warped mentally diseased minds of liberals they are legion and number in the millions .... Just waiting to take over America ....


23 posted on 03/07/2012 5:04:29 PM PST by Popman (America is squandering its wealth on riotous living, war, and welfare.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The whole premise of this vanity is ridiculous. There is not party aparatus that sets out to groom people, or is controlling the process. The process is the one you see: people with the fire in the belly to run do so. Some of them are better at it than others. They raise money, debates, try to get on TV, try to go up in the polls, figure out how caucus's work, go on talk radio, hire consultants, buy ads.

It's a complex process. It doesn't favor amatures, even talented ones, but mere competence and good advisers isn't enough either. (Pawlenty, had both but failed. Cain had neither but did pretty well.)

It doesn't matter what the supposed "big wigs" think: there are four peopole who want to be POTUS who are running. Two of them have a chance: Santorum and Romney, though Santorum's chance is small.

Romney really wants to win. He's not there as a place holder for anyone. He took a shot in 2008 and came up short, but finished decently in 2nd or 3rd depending on how you view him compared to Huck. He obviously learned a lot, some breaks came his way (the other moderates were pretty lack luster, there were a lot of conservatives splitting the conservative vote, etc.)

It's way to early to say that Romney isn't going to win. Obama is hated in much of America. I had a 21 year old black girl sneer at me "you're not going to vote for HIM again are you?" at the mere mention of his name.

In general whoever gets the nomination has a 50/50 chance of being President. Bush's elections were both very close. Barry did a bit better, but when you look at the State by State vote, it's obviously going to be a hard sell for him in the electoral college in 2012.

24 posted on 03/07/2012 5:05:41 PM PST by Jack Black ( Whatever is left of American patriotism is now identical with counter-revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
So it’s fair to say that the 1st amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing a religion. But the states were allowed to and did.

Until the 14th amendment which states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

As a citizen of the United States (national citizen), I have the right (privilege and immunity) to be free from government intrusion in my religion. This national right is also made a state right by the 14th Amendment.

However, I do agree the separation is one-way. The state cannot dictate religion, but religion as a cooperate body and individuals based on religious conviction can and should be allowed the same political rights as secular institutions. Therefore, Planned Parenthood can have a public political voice but so can the Catholic Church.

25 posted on 03/07/2012 5:14:31 PM PST by HapaxLegamenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
The whole premise of this vanity is ridiculous. There is not party aparatus that sets out to groom people, or is controlling the process. The process is the one you see: people with the fire in the belly to run do so. Some of them are better at it than others. They raise money, debates, try to get on TV, try to go up in the polls, figure out how caucus's work, go on talk radio, hire consultants, buy ads.

That's true. Sometimes lately I wish there were such an apparatus. If there were, they might have picked better candidates and groomed them better.

And Santorum a fundamentalist -- a "Christian fundamentalist" no less? I thought he was a Catholic.

"We should be looking more closely at R.J. Rushdoony" even though he and Santorum have nothing in common with each other?

We should be "looking at him" simply because it's a convenient smear to throw at Santorum?

It's not often you see that smear mechanism operating so openly.

26 posted on 03/07/2012 5:20:22 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Williams
"I am sick of stupid commentators saying Obama is likely to win."

IMHO the likelihood of hussein getting a second term drops proportionally to the difference between him and the GOP candidate. There's a huge difference between Rick and hussein. An even greater difference between Newt and hussein, and so little with mit it's not worth mentioning.

27 posted on 03/07/2012 5:27:59 PM PST by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

What you say is true. However, this line from the first amendment also clearly says that Congress/the government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Why is it that so many people don't understand that the government IS prohibiting the free exercise of religion when it (he/they) dictates what citizens can and cannot do and think as part of their religious faith and practice?!

28 posted on 03/07/2012 5:32:48 PM PST by Prov3456
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
Where does it say separation of church and state in the Constitution?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not in the constitution. But it explicitly states there will be no "established" State Religion.

The socialist project has been to cry “establishment of religion!!!” when they are actually engaged in the censorship of free exercise of religion. The same people who ratified the First Amendment hired chaplains. What the framers, and the public who ratified and reelected the framers, understood by “an establishment of a religion is a far cry from what exercises “liberals” today. An establishment of religion would be a tax supporting a particular Christian denomination at the expense of others. Obama feels no compunction about requiring the largest Christian denominations in the country to pay for people to do things in violation of longstanding religious tenants. It is painfully obvious that he actually intends to make Christians feel aggrieved about what he presumes to force us to do.
What is hiding in plain sight all the while is the fact that wire service journalism behaves precisely as a cult. Its reporters are “priests,” and the newswire is their deity. How else explain their quasi-religious belief in their own objectivity? Subjectivity is best defined, IMHO, precisely as a belief in one’s own objectivity - so it would be a miracle indeed if journalists who claimed objectivity actually delivered on the claim. Which patently they do not. If they were objective, the Duke Lacrosse “rape” case would have dropped out of the headlines within a week, which was ample time for anyone not biased against the “privileged, rich, white males” to discern that the only thing sustaining the story was precisely self-interested prejudice. But self-interested prejudice sustained that story for months on end, until an adult named Cooper finally showed up and pricked the balloon.

And after the story was punctured, the journalists simply dropped the subject, with no thought to any apology owed to young men who had been placed in serious jeopardy of punishment by journalistic fecklessness. Just like the story after election night 2000 was not the erroneous premature call of FL for Gore while some of the polls were still open in FL. No, the reporters only wanted to talk about the “premature” correct call of FL for Bush by Fox in the wee hours of the morning, long after the polls had closed and no votes were being influenced. The wire services unify all journalists around the cult of journalistic "objectivity.”

And make no mistake about the tendency of the government to make the cult of journalistic objectivity the Establishment in America. You need look no further than “Campaign Finance Reform” legislation in general and McCain-Feingold in particular to see that wire service journalists are “more equal” in law than the rest of us. The money spent propagating journalists’ opinions and “reports” is pure as the driven snow, you see, while the money you spend promoting the candidacy of your preferred candidate is presumably a corrupt influence don’t you know.


29 posted on 03/07/2012 5:41:52 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer
But Focus on the Family is not what we are talking about when we consider Santorum’s politics. We should be looking more closely at R.J. Rushdoony, a man little known outside the Christian Right who is nevertheless considered the father of Christian Dominionism

Correct. And excellent news for America. I hope very much Santorum wins the nomination and then wins the presidency, but he already accomplished what no conservative candidate could before: He showed that a consistent Christian conservatism, -- the kind that homeschools, the kind that opposes contraception on moral grounds, the kind that intends to bring the Christian worldview into politics where it belongs, -- can credibly contend for the Republican nomination and one day, it shall win.

30 posted on 03/07/2012 5:50:29 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnd201

Completely a piece of trash. Nothing even remotely true in the article. Even the “Operation Chaos” FAILED in Michigan as Romney won. So whatever games they are trying to do these liberals can’t even do that right. Santorum has principles which considering most Americans don’t would scare people to death. Now more than even I hope he wins the Presidency. Man it will be fun to piss off the liberals!!!!!


31 posted on 03/07/2012 6:06:32 PM PST by napscoordinator (A moral principled Christian with character is the frontrunner! Congrats Santorum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
But the language says “Congress.” Several states had “established” religions at the time and continued to have them after the passage of the bill of rights. Other states did not. The establishment clause means just what it says: “Congress [the Feds]” can’t do anything in the area of establishment of religion. OTOH, the state governments, are free to establish or disestablish a religion (see the 10th amendment).

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Is it, then, your opinion that the states can make laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?

32 posted on 03/07/2012 6:24:57 PM PST by Washi (Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse, one head-shot at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“And as the object of ‘Operation Hilarity,’ Santorum flirts with Quiverfull ideology all the time. His children are homeschooled. He opposes contraception. He endorses traditional gender roles. He insists that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. And most mainstream Americans write him off as the product of what they think they know about conservative Christianity. They see a man influenced by James Dobson”

Wow. I have realized for some time now that I am a tea party person without having ever joined anything. Now I learn I am a part of another movement I’ve never heard of - the Quiverfullers. Cool. Feels nice to belong.


33 posted on 03/07/2012 6:55:10 PM PST by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prov3456

No argument, you are correct.

Obozo has declared war against all Christians, Jews and some other faiths. He has assaulted the Freedom of Religious belief granted by God (not government) and written in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. And the founders had foresight enough to require an oath of office for officials that stated they would “protect and defend the Contitution”.

Obozo is a Traitorous Liar, Fraud, Commie, Bastard.


34 posted on 03/07/2012 7:30:49 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

Atheism is the religion of Leftist Statists.

Communism is their preferred form of Subjection.

It is time their little play houses are destroyed.

This time the Christians, Jews and some others must pull together and destroy the enemy who assaults our freedom, economy and our military. IT IS TIME!

Unfortunately many do not perceive the danger we face.


35 posted on 03/07/2012 7:38:27 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Washi

“Is it, then, your opinion that the states can make laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?”

Unless the State law prohibits such activities, emphatically yes. The Bill of Rights did not limit the States. The States retained all powers not granted to the feds. That’s why the first amendment says “Congress shall make no law...” That’s pretty unambiguous.

In fact, before WWII, that’s pretty much where things stood according to the Supreme Court also. After that, the Court dreamed up the fiction that the bill of rights was incorporated into the 14th amendment and that the bill of rights therefore, applied as against the states (gross oversimplification alert—but essentially true). “Incorporation” of the Bill of Rights as against the States is a pretty recent notion, consitutionally speaking, with little support in the text or legislative history of the 14th amendment and none at all in the text or history of the original Consitution.


36 posted on 03/07/2012 8:22:10 PM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

“Surely you do not suggest that [a state establishing religion] should be an issue today?”

Nope. That states had established religions at the time of the Consitution tells you what the founders meant by the Establishment Clause. It meant the feds couldn’t disestablish the states’ religions. It meant the feds couldn’t create their own established religion. It meant the feds were out of the establishment of religion business altogether.

I would not want to try to establish a religion in Texas either. But if you think about it, the Feds are trying to establish the religion of secular humanism in Texas when they force secular humanist notions on other religions. The Catholic church must now obey secular humanist notions about contraception and day after abortion pills. And, make no mistake, secular humanism is a religious belief in the non-existence or unimportance of God and the wonderfulness of Man.


37 posted on 03/07/2012 8:31:02 PM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: HapaxLegamenon

Your reading of the 14th amendment is, of course, consistent with the Warren Court incorporation rulings. I’m not so comfortable with that thinking—it would have been so easy to say “The Bill of Rights applies against the states” as part of the 14th amendment. Yet Congress did not. But in the context of the post-civil-war era, it’s very hard to figure out what Congress meant. It clearly meant to end slavery. But it also clearly didn’t mean that anything a modern progressive could dream up is in the 14th amendment. 14th amendment law is a mess because of the lack of specificity.


38 posted on 03/07/2012 8:40:11 PM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Anyone who thinks Palin hinting at a 2016 bid is a sign of anything is deluded or over-interpreting. I’d had the clear sense she was running for the nomination in 2016 (or 2020) from before she took herself out of contention for this round.


39 posted on 03/07/2012 8:42:20 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

>> Consider that Santorum, more than any other candidate, has pushed to make contraception a matter of national debate in 2012.

An involuntary reflex.

It’s great this non-issue has become THE issue.

Santorum is an establishment bit player, and the inability to escape this sideshow is a testament to his lack of competency as it concerns leadership.

I like Rick Santorum. He’s inspiring, a great family man, but not the man that will orchestrate the retaking of the Fundamental Liberty that’s been stolen from the Citizens of the United States.

Go Newt!!!


40 posted on 03/07/2012 8:54:57 PM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson