The rude question for Santorum: Does he supports the Pope's call for "positive laicity"- that is, positive secularism? For example, does he support the right of Muslim madrassa schools to be established in America and paid for by government tax dollars through vouchers? If no, then the followup: If he supports Catholic schools receiving vouchers, then what are his grounds for not allowing this to Muslim schools?

I certainly don't hold Santorum's views, but let's at least understand the point of view he speaking from. That way, we better understand how his nutty sounding messages could possibly resonate any sane independent voter.

He is attempting to misrepresent Obama's views on Laicity as being equivalent to French secularism. It is important to take note that Santorum does believe in laicity- that the government should not take sides between one religion and another. The positive form of secularism that Pope Benedict advocates is one that does not attempt to excise religious perspectives from the public sphere. Yet Santorum will not say he supports any form of "secularism" because he knows that for most of his constituents, "secularism" means "godlessness". So he tosses around "secularism" as if it is equivalent to the anti-clericism of the French revolution when the churches were converted temporarily into "Temples of Reason".

Anyway, French and Turkish Laicity is extreme by American standards. For example wearing any face covering scarf is banned in the public spaces both in France and Turkey. The French ban conspicuous displays of religious affiliation in schools- such as crucifix necklaces, or jewish boys wearing a kippah.

then what are his grounds for not allowing this to Muslim schools

Because Christianity is the right religion and Islam is some nutty cult that has people fly planes into buildings for virgins. The US Constitution only exists to tolerate Christians- everyone else are exempt.

I'm pretty sure that's what he would say or something similar to that line of thinking.

It's a rude question because he blows his foot off regardless how he answers.

If he is honest he will admit the Pope's view of positive laicity dictates that vouchers should be given out to all religious schools including madrasahs. Whichever way he answers he does political damage to himself. He either alienates the anti-Muslim evangelical/ tea party types, or he tells independent voters his position is thinly veiled theocracy.

Slice it or dice it the guy is a scary creep who sugar coats his bigotry in religion. And as for temples of reason- ha that would be a breath of fresh air for this country. The French for once had it right.

Santorum has a more deadly form of scariness regarding his militarism. The right loves to go around claiming liberals are irreligious and godless. It is nonesense and the height of arrogance to claim to know what is in people's hearts. Whether Santorum ever accepted Christ into his heart is between him and God. But we have ample evidence of his rejection of the teachings of Christ as expressed in the walk he has walked.

In 2004 the government reported that Iraq did not have WMFs. By December 2005 fewer than 26% of Americans still believed that Iraq had WMDs. How do the militarists respond? By disinformation. On June 22, 2006, Santorum stated "We have found weapons of mass detruction". What he was referring to are some odd corroded artillery shells of iran iraq war vintage that were capable of delivering a small amount of mustard gas to a confined area of a battlefield. Hardly mass destruction.

By July 2006, through the efforts of Santorum and Fox news, the number of Americans believing falsely that the Iraq had WMDs had gone back up to 50%.

Santorum is the kind of Christian who prays for a .357 Magnum for Christmas.

Oh, Rick Santorum has no idea what's in the Constitution...not that he cares. He's one of those little neoFascists of the same ilk as Reince Priebus and Scott Walker - and unfit for any public office in the United States of America.

The Bible is his Constitution and to be interpreted as he see fit!

wow....that's it!

He doesn't even know what is in the Bible!

That's why I recommend studying the New Testament, what Jesus had to say specifically.

The guy was an absolute commie and that's why I love him!

Matthew 25 in particular.

It's also worth noting the passages in Acts and in the Pauline letters which concern the question of the place of Jewish law in Christianity. There are two layers of importance in that: the primary, and historical one, lies in the fact that Christianity originated as a sect of Judaism; the second and more relevant to the present lies in the selective stress the religious right places on Jewish law today.

Consider (without getting bogged down in this example) how frequently the right quotes Leviticus on the subject of homosexuality. Is Leviticus really pertinent to this particular debate? Well, not if you really pay attention to all the stuff in Acts/Paul to the effect that Jewish law is not binding on Christians. Back in the day, the central controversy was over circumcision and dietary rules, but those weren't the only things.

The basic point I'm trying to make is that, in always being so legalistic and punitive in his ideology, Santorum is pushing hard against the anti-legalistic thrust of much of the New Testament. I suspect that Santorum would much prefer to stone people for their sins rather than forgive them.

Don't we wish?

I'm from Minnesota - you know one of the states that turned the campaign upside down. I suppose I should expect nutty voting from our state Republicans (after all, they elected T-Paw and Michelle Bachman to office) but this one absolutely escapes me. Either it was a total protest vote against Romney and Gingrich, or they have falling off the deep end very badly.

Now I can never say that there is anything coming out of the Republican Party that I can understand in terms of actual rights for the people. Seems to me that the Conservative wrong insists on crawling into our bedrooms, limiting our access to medical care, taking away any benefits we have as employees, demanding that we all comply to their religious dogma, etc.

The worst is that if President Obama tries to insure medical care for all women, they have the gall to chastise him for attacking religion(?) It's so ludicrous that it is beyond sanity. But then the whole process has been turned from a serious consideration of who would be best to lead the country to a Saturday Night Live skit that forgot to end.

I am down to my last reserves of patience with these clowns. Best I just shut off the TV and fight like a holy devil for President Obama. He is our only hope.

Grama: I am also from MN. I'm pretty sure our state's caucus results were an anti-Romney backlash. There were approximately 20,000 less Reps. voting last Tues. and Romney got approximately 17,000 less votes. That means (to me) that almost everyone that didn't vote didn't vote for Romney. Which would suggest that those who DID vote weren't in the mood to vote for Romney either.

Grama, the sad truth is you will always go broke betting on the stupidity and perversity of other people. Simple reasonability and even sanity are never qualities you should take for granted that other people possess. You will always be dissapointed.

Well, Obama is the Kenyan Muslim Fascist Socialist Usurper. You can't really usurp a democratically elected position. So on some level they see the presidency as a monarchy ("permanent Republican majority") and themselves as rightful heirs.

No. It's not OK to joke about killing Christians or anyone else.

Yeah, Mike. I'm one of those and I sure hope that my faith doesn't require me to play a role as Daniel in the lion's den.

Just so that you know Grama- I am an atheist yes, but I do not want you to think all of devalue your life....mmmk? You mean a lot to me- even though we're not IRL friends or whatever- you still mean a lot to me just cause of who you are. Ok? I want you to be happy and healthy and I'll be damned if you can't be- so I just wanna make that clear for as long as you blog here. You matter to me- like so many other people- and apparently it needs to be said, cause apparently- even though they deserve as much- they don't hear as much. So yeah. So my not-saying-I-support-you-don't-mean-I-don't-support-you...k?

LOL!

As per "newsblog903": "I say, Long Live King Obama!"

Well, he may be a bit wishy-washy at times but he is definitely the lesser of the evils at this point.

No, he isn't. He is simply a different flavor of cyanide.

Saint Francis/Assisi is claimed to have said, "Preach the Gospel. Use words only if necessary."

In other words, live your faith, don't talk about it.

In other words, I am interested in your actions, not your words/blatherings/excuses.

or rather, white, middle-aged or female! The republican right this season is showing its inherent misogyny. These guys are terrifying in their complacency, stupifying in their ability to ignore reality, and despicable for their incredible hypocrisy.

Oh Charley, I'm afraid there is no hope for Santorum- faith maybe, but no hope!

He needs a padded room with bars on the window, not a couch. And lots of psychotropic drugs.

Mike, that would be the perfect divine justice. He would get a taste of his own medicine, literally.

Santorum does not know history or he is endorsing an oligarchy. The French Revolution ended the monarchy which had absolute power and brought democracy to France. The guillotine was used on the royals, aristocrats and the Church. After the excesses of the revolution receded the French established their democratic government which is something they did not have before the revolution. It ended the special privileges of the wealthy aristocrats and the Church hierarchy.

Meh, the French Revolution wasn't quite so firmly definitive. It was followed by Terror, then Napoleon, and then a restoration of the monarchy, more revolution, another Napoleon, more revolution, fascism and resistance, but maybe now finally the Revolution's promise will be kept.

The new Torquemada!

I can't resist newsblogs comment.

"Nooooobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Our chief weapon is fear. Fear and surprise. Our two, two main weapons are fear, surprise, and a ruthless efficiency. Our three, three main weapons are fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope. Ah. Amongst our weapons are fear, surprise.... Amongst our weaponry are.... Ah. I'll come in again."

You'll enjoy this Mike:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5McSEU48Y8

News! You reminded me of one of my favorite comic books. "Lobo's Back" Nicky Torquemada and the Howlin' Inquisitors, the Fighting Joes of Confession Company!

That's one idea Santorum would just love to run with.

I need a "great snark" or "lol" button on this blog!

The book of Proverbs? Seriously? That's the most terrifying thing you can come up with? Frankly, if the worst Santorum was threatening us with was "Hatred stirs up strive, but love covers all offenses" I don't think we'd have anything to worry about.

Ironically, my inability to stomach fascism and fear mongering was my first clue I may be a liberal. I guess I still don't have the touch for modern conservatism. :P

The threatre students at my alma mater put on a production of Lysistrata. Good Stuff!

Hear, Hear!!! And no VIAGRA!!!!

Great idea....I'm starting to sketch posters for the protest.

For sure Sgt! The really frightening thing about this anti-women campaign is its roots in racism. I truly believe, this breed, breed, breed, initiative forced upon women is about wanting white women to have more babies and stay in the majority against our Hispanic growing population. Add a little in-vitro, and white women can have multiple children at one time - so sad, and in the name of God.

If you recall, China did this to their women in the past; banning contraception and forcing them to build the population. Now, with more people than they can handle, they are forcing contraception. As a result, the young men do not have enough women to marry. These poor souls are outsourcing for global Chinese women to marry.

Women are not lab rats that male dominated societies can manipulate to meet their power-mongering schemes. I say, Lysistrata!

When will personhood begin for women ?

Good question Ted...some day.

The only time we have personhood as women is when we are fetuses!

Question: Does this mean that those of us who properly respect women as equals in an advanced society get extra sex?

Humm Vox, this sounds like Darwin's natural selection. The more respect women get the more sex. The more sex the more babies who inherit the "respect gene". The more natural born "respecters" there are well,....

Aretha Franklin had it right, didn't she?

Vox, every man in America would soon make your claim if *that* were the prize, right? And newsblog, I wonder if this is more Pavlov than Darwin, hehe...? *That* being the bell and well, men being the — — _s!

If you're asking whether I espouse values of gender equality because I truly believe them or because I want them to think I respect them to elicit sex, then you're also bringing up the larger discussion of whether motive matters when legislating Gender Equality.

Are the Democrats who defend women's rights doing it because they believe it? or to get votes from women and sex from their wives, and respect from their daughters? And if they are, does it matter as far as the cause is concerned.

It may just be too long and complex an issue for a blog comment, I'd probably have to discuss it with a progressive woman late into the night,

or over breakfast.

It may just be too long and complex an issue for a blog comment, I'd probably have to discuss it with a progressive woman late into the night,

A prolonged night in bed..... well with the right person that sounds good. Although a long night with Rick Santorum sounds like pure hell. Ugg Biblical sex ugggg How mechanical!

Here's the big secret. I can tell you that people with the right attitude, and that includes respect for their partners, make better lovers. Have I said toooo much?

Sorry Vox, I am doing other things. In no way was I questioning your sincerity which I could not determine from Spain no matter how intuitive women are. You bring up an excellent point about motive in this issues and actually, all issues.

Different groups deal with this differently. The law, for example, does not try to read the minds of the accused but requires, at minimum, circumstantial evidence. In technology, we prototype or program to make something "real." In these social areas, like relationships, activism and politics, I would venture to say most is done based on self-interest. I would also qualify this by saying so much in these areas is projected upon another person with little or no self-reflection.

For example, Santorum's big to-do about contraception and right to choose does not resolve the fact that thousands of fathers take the selfish option to walk out on a family; leaving the women to raise children, work, become head of household and such. It is primarily women who are eternally joined to children with little or no support.

So, how could he be sincere when he has not suggested any more than lip service,"don't get pregnant unless you are married" type verbiage while promising to take away the very thing that prevents those pregnancies?

Newsblog, IMO, Santorum and Romney wear their children like a virility belt, while their wives stand there docile and whipped into submission. Ricky and Mitt couldn't handle women like us - and they know it. - which is why they want to return all of us to barefoot and pregnant.

So, how could he be sincere when he has not suggested any more than lip service,"don't get pregnant unless you are married" type verbiage while promising to take away the very thing that prevents those pregnancies?

How? Because he is a shallow, stupid, knee jerk Bible thumper. All thru. the Bible women are forced to assume the position and I guess a lot of women still think that's their lot in life. He's the type (one of many) who gives Christianity a bad name. I honestly don't know why anyone listens to him.

It's fine, I was just joking, I wouldn't know when I could find time for "Extra Sex," If I had it. The world is so busy nowadays.

Santorum and his ilk disgust me. They take a hyperbolic, idealized, Norman Rockwellian version of the nuclear family and use it as a shield so they can pretend that they are defending "Family Values," when they are really imposing their will on society.

They have a mold, a "perfect family mold," and everyone must either fit or be broken and contorted to fit, or be shamed and outcast if they do not fit.

It has a lot in common with their "Rugged Individualist," model, where rich plutocrats pretend they pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps. Where they demonize anyone who needs help, hiding their own government subsidies and denouncing the very interdependence that makes America great in the first place.

But yeah, I was only partially kidding, I really cannot stress enough the importance of women avoiding relationships with men that see them as less than they are.

If that should just happen to result in more sex for those of us who respect women as persons, well then that's just a burden we'll have to put up with. ;)

As always when this option comes up, I must point out that women want sex too, and that the Lysistrata solution plays right into the conservative transactional view of sex and by extension rape culture--that women don't actually want sex and have to be bribed into having it: dinner and a movie = sex, ring = lifetime of sex, refusing sex after the proper "price" has been paid is "asking for it", und so weiter. It's really not a good idea to be brought up even in jest.

Here's the big secret. I can tell you that people with the right attitude, and that includes respect for their partners, make better lovers. Have I said toooo much?

Dear newsblog:

How can you have said too much with a message that isn't heard nearly enough?

They have a mold, a "perfect family mold," and everyone must either fit or be broken and contorted to fit, or be shamed and outcast if they do not fit.

And I have this image of an ordinary modern American family being run through a Procrustean torture machine to become the Cleavers.

I was going to say that too Mech. The old Biblical notion of sex is just too awful and I can't imagine anyone wanting to follow it-you know procreation only, missionary only, women as sperm recepticles and baby makers.

I like what Vox said about relationships of mutual respect and to add to that joy in each others company.

And VOX- too busy for extra sex! Now that is sad! :(

Mech, can't talk long got a conference. But, Lysistrata has nothing to do with not wanting sex. If you read it, the women were having a hard time of it. I am simply pointing out that we should be able to choose; choose to have sex for sex's sake without the worry of getting pregnant or counting safe days and such.

On the other hand, women are the prize "entered into" so to speak, and should be taken to dinner and a movie if that is their standard. Where else can you enter an establishment and not pay an entrance fee?

Respect the Power of the V!

Santorum and his ilk disgust me. They take a hyperbolic, idealized, Norman Rockwellian version of the nuclear family and use it as a shield so they can pretend that they are defending "Family Values," when they are really imposing their will on society.

Think the video of Soundgarden's Black Hole Sun. Beneathe all the squeaky clean butter would not melt in your mouth wholesomeness is some really dark weirdness.

He is advocating for a social revolution. Like they had in China. More to the point, exactly like what they had in Iran, when they returned to their traditional values. What does it look like when Christians do this? Crusades. Inquisitions. Witch Hunts. There is a long and torrid, horrifying, documented history of what it looks like when what he is pushing happens.

I dunno Mech, I think that's a valid concern and a good point. But I think that "The people I have sex with should respect me." can fit into more than just the transaction model. If only because the respecting would have to continue throughout the sex and relationship. It's not like marching for women's rights gives the protester de facto privilege to then treat his girlfriend abusively later that night. Sort of a "balance" system.

It's not that the "balance" model never applies to morality, or else every act of charity would be evil simply through the economics of opportunity cost. For example, "Every dollar you give to AID's prevention is a dollar you didn't give to children's cancer research, Why are you in favor of children having Cancer?"

Likewise the Balance model is important in politics, Your elected official may do several things that you consider good, but that wouldn't purchase him the right to do something wrong, it might however, purchase him forgiveness for not making progress on other good things.

Maybe instead it would just be a selection criteria. Like a minimum requirement, it's not that the men are giving respect so they can purchase the right to violate a woman's personal sovereignty, it'd be more like a woman choosing only to share personal sovereignty with people who meet the minimum requirement of respecting them as human beings.

Don: exactly. When I listen to Gingrich and Romney I don't get as horrified because I know they are two faced liars about their values. I know they are using religion as a political tool but Santorum believes his own @!$%#. He is to awful for words.

D&%#!, I just realized I could have made a joke with the sieve of Aristophanes and selection criteria for finding a Prime lover. Too late to get it in under the wire.

And you get so few chances at a good Mathematics/Politics crossover joke too.

That ok's my friend Vox, I'm a mathematical idiot so I probably wouldn't have gotten the joke anyway.

Re; Bible version of sex sucking (I'm paraphrasing here - lol): try the Song of Solomon for a fairly different kind of biblical sex... I have friends who as Catholic children of the fifties were given Bibles without that particular book included....

Vox... in my world your attitude would definitely mean more sex!

Same here! I RESPECT YOU VOX :)

Same here Vox, you're the man!

Hey, how do we know VOX is a man? Well, whatever you are VOX, we respect you :)

A wonderful idea, 3DPhD, but someone here said "no viagra". I would suggest that rather than ban it, it should be widely encouraged - NOW we're talking fast results.

Sorry to chime in so late with this, but...

The only time we have personhood as women is when we are fetuses!

Brilliant!

I think you've just written a perfect motto if this becomes a real campaign issue.

I feel as though sweater vests are the silent victims here.

Yup. I've been saying for a while that the Right is bound and determined to repeal 1933 while ignoring the fact that the alternative is 1793.

DC- your metaphors and analogies are just getting better and better!

Thank you! Stick around. I've been collecting them for decades.

There are compensations for having a garbage can mind. As $HERSELF could tell you, though, there are also compensations for being able to ignore the smelly stuff I pull out of it.

Nahhh. This is a support group for people who suffer from Geek Tourrettes's, who just blurt out obscure and cogent eruditions.

And he actually said that Pres. Obama thinks that he knows better than us so he is the one to decide. Ha!

He needs to tend to his own children. One of them is very sick, and he lost another. Bad karma?

See what happens when you cut funding for insane asylums?