::I'm reposting this in light of the recent surge* in Santorum's popularity over the last few states.::

(The list is not mine, it comes to you courtesy of ThinkProgress.org; the original article is HERE.)

1) ANNUL ALL SAME-SEX MARRIAGES: Arguing that gay relationships “destabilize” society, Santorum wouldn’t offer any legal protections to gay relationships and has pledged to annul all same-sex marriages if elected president. During his 99-country tour of Iowa, Santorum frequently compared same-sex relationships to inanimate objects like trees, basketballs, beer, and paper towels and even tried to blame the economic crisis on gay people. As Santorum explained back in August, religious people have a constitutional right to discriminate against gays: “We have a right the Constitution of religious liberty but now the courts have created a super-right that’s above a right that’s actually in the Constitution, and that’s of sexual liberty. And I think that’s a wrong, that’s a destructive element.”

2) ‘I’M FOR INCOME INEQUALITY’: “They talk about income inequality. I’m for income inequality,” Santorum said during an event in Pella, Iowa in December. “I think some people should make more than other people, because some people work harder and have better ideas and take more risk, and they should be rewarded for it. I have no problem with income inequality.”

3) CONTRACEPTION IS ‘A LICENSE TO DO THINGS’: Santorum has pledged to repeal all federal funding for contraception and allow the states to outlaw birth control, insisting that “it’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

4) GAY SOLDIERS ‘CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN CLOSE QUARTERS’: During an appearance on Fox News Sunday in October, Santorum defended his support for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell by arguing that gay soldiers would disrupt the military because “they’re in close quarters, they live with people, they obviously shower with people.” He also suggested that “there are people who were gay and lived the gay lifestyle and aren’t anymore.”

5) OBAMA SHOULD OPPOSE ABORTION BECAUSE HE’S BLACK: During an appearance on Christian television in January, Santorum said he was surprised that President Obama didn’t know when life began — given his skin color. “I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people,” he explained.

6) WE DON’T NEED FOOD STAMPS BECAUSE OBESITY RATES ARE SO HIGH: Speaking in Le Mars, Iowa in December, Santorum promised to significantly reduce federal funding for food stamps, arguing that the nation’s increasing obesity rates render the program unnecessary.

7) ABORTION EXCEPTIONS TO PROTECT WOMEN’S HEALTH ARE ‘PHONY’: While discussing his track record as a champion of the partial birth abortion ban in June, Santorum dismissed exceptions other senators wanted to carve out to protect the life and health of mothers, calling such exceptions “phony.” “They wanted a health exception, which of course is a phony exception which would make the ban ineffective,” he said.

8) HEALTH [CARE] REFORM WILL KILL MY CHILD: Santorum, who claims that Obamacare motivated him to run for president, told reporters in April that his daughter Bella — who was born with a genetic abnormality — wouldn’t survive in a country with “socialized medicine.” “Children like Bella are not given the treatment that other children are given.”

9) UNINSURED AMERICANS SHOULD SPEND LESS ON CELL-PHONE BILLS: During a meeting with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register in August, Santorum said that people who can’t afford health care should stop whining about the high costs of medical treatments and medications and spend less on non essentials. Answering a question about the uninsured, Santorum explained that health care, like a car, is a luxury resource that is rationed by society and recalled the story of a woman who said she was spending $200 a month on life-saving prescriptions. Santorum told her to stop complaining and instead lower her cable and cell phone bills.

10) INSURERS SHOULD DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS: Santorum sounded like a representative from the health insurance industry when he addressed a small group of high school students in Merrimack, New Hampshire in December. The former Pennsylvania senator not only defended insurers for denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, he also argued that individuals who are sick should pay higher premiums because they cost more money to insure.

---

Now, I don't really think Santorum is going to be the nominee. (Then again, taken individually, I'm not sure I can actually see any of them as an actual presidential candidate, but one of them must be. I just think this one is a little more outrageous than most.) However, I think that his near-miss in Iowa is informative on many levels. In 2008, Huckabee won Iowa, and look where that got him. Nevertheless, now, as then, I think that as non-predictive as these early caucuses may be, they bear noting, in that they tell us something about where the discussion ranges, about whether or not there are actual people who will go so far as to say "I think this is the best man to be the President of the United States."

Regardless of whether Santorum is as current in two month's time as Huckabee was in his turn after Iowa, he got this far. So did Ron Paul, come to mention it (whole post on that another time). I have tried to refrain from primary commentary (it's hardly been needed - all this lot needs is microphones, and the satire writes itself!), but I have been watching all of the GOP hopefuls and what they have been saying in the primaries (because we will, of course hear a totally different tune from whoever ends up the actual candidate. It's good to have notes to look back on to see what they've said to their own...)

What are your thoughts on Iowa, the primary at large, and the upcoming Nov 2012 election?

(*Why is it that so many, many words just sound *wrong* when used vis a vis Santorum?)

Published on Right Wing Watch (http://www.rightwingwatch.org)

Religious Right Brings Back the Halal Meat Panic

Idaho pharmacist denies anti-bleeding med because woman MIGHT have had an abortion

A pharmacist at a Nampa, Idaho, Walgreens refused to dispense medication that stops uterine bleeding because she suspected the woman may have had an abortion. The pharmacist invoked the state's new so-called conscience clause that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives and abortifacient drugs, among other things, if they have a personal problem with it.

Last November, a woman took her prescription for Methergine, a drug that stops uterine bleeding regardless of cause, to Walgreens. The pharmacist, suspicious that the woman's uncontrolled bleeding may have been the result of an abortion, called the nurse practitioner who wrote the prescription to inquire why the patient needed it. When the nurse refused to answer because to do so would violate the patient's confidentiality, the pharmacist hung up on her and refused to fill the prescription.

OK, I have serious issues with the so-called 'conscience clause' to begin with. But when we end up with pharmacists (freakin pharmacists!) thinking they have the right to decide whether to dispense medications that have no abortifacent attributes to them at all, because they *think* they *might* be used to treat the *after-effects* of a *possible* abortion? Seriously??? Not to mention, "uncontrolled bleeding" is simply not something ANY kind of medical professional should have the right to choose not to address! What part of "uncontrolled bleeding" = "life threatening" do these kinds of people not get?

I have not been able to find out if the pharmacist in question was disciplined, fired, or (better yet) had their license revoked, and I'll update if I do. Meanwhile, I suggest contacting your local Walgreens, or the Walgreens HQ and letting them know that you don't accept this kind of life endangering B.S. Here's the info:


Idaho State Board of Pharmacy
3380 Americana Terrace, Suite 320
Boise, ID 83706
Phone (208) 334-2356
FAX (208) 334-3536
...................

Walgreens
1-877-250-5823
200 Wilmot Road
Deerfield, IL 60015

"At best, a throwback to primitivism -- at worst, unconstitutional political posturing and manipulation..."

An Atheist public policy group denounced Sunday's "Day of Prayer" by Southern governors as a political stunt which is exploiting an environmental tragedy in order to win votes and promote religion and as, incidentally, a clear violation of Christian biblical principles.

"At best, this is a bronze age response to disaster," declared Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists. "This is just another example of how some political leaders use religion to win votes, garner public sympathy, and lead people to believe that superstition trumps the need for good planning and responsible public policy. These governors are plainly hypocrites as defined, allegedly in words from Jesus, in Matthew 6:5-6."

The Governors of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, along with the lieutenant Governor of Florida, all issued proclamations declaring Sunday, June 27, 2010, a Day of Prayer and urged citizens to engage in religious ritual in hopes of finding a solution to the growing oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

"This is about as deep as you can get when it comes to promoting irrationality and faith-based superstition," added Dr. Buckner. "We have another example of public officials telling citizens when and how to pray, whether to pray, and what to pray for."

Dave Silverman, Vice President and Communications Director for American Atheists, said that prayer is never a suitable substitute for sound public policy, environmental safeguards, and sensible planning for catastrophic emergencies.

"I doubt that Jesus or some angel is suddenly going to descend from the sky with millions of feet of boom, or more barges to suck up the leaking oil," said Mr. Silverman. "If prayer really worked, why is it that so far, anyway, God seems to be ignoring the suffering all along the gulf?"

Dr. Buckner added, "Perhaps the politicians need to get up off their knees and spend more time mobilizing the resources to deal with this catastrophe. That should not include offering false hope or ridiculous suggestions for the people being affected by this event.”

---

Personally, while I certainly am in complete agreement with this denunciation of a backward and utterly unconstitutional thing, I am even more concerned and disgusted that it's even necessary. Honestly, these days, I find myself wondering with increasing trepidation, how the extremism building in the US can possibly be reconciled without massive violence, or at the very least, massive upheaval. It's not a pretty thought, but with the right/religious right so far over the sanity line, and the very real threats to our environment, our food supply, our health, our society- I just can't see it ending well.

---

AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for Atheists, Freethinkers and other nonbelievers; works for the total separation of church and state; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC.
http://www.atheists.org
http://www.americanatheist.org

American Atheists, Inc. PO BOX 158, Cranford, NJ 07016
Tel.: (908) 276-7300 Fax: (908) 276-7402

For more information, please contact:
Ed Buckner, President 908-499-9200 (cell) or 770-803-5353 (office/fax)
Dave Silverman, Communications Director 732-648-9333

Quote from an article on Religion Dispatches about gun-toting tea-party goers:

The Constitution Party is frequently dismissed as a fringe party of little electoral consequence, even though its significance lies elsewhere. It is in fact a steaming hotbed of far-right factions with theocratic, vigilante, and sometimes revolutionary ideas whose like-minded members get together to make their plans, just like any other organized faction in American public life. The party says it is 100% pro-life and pro-gun. (emphasis is mine)

Now, let's just think about that for a moment. Even in a movement which can accept claims like those of the tea party, the biblical literalists, and the Tim LaHayes of the world, this statement seems to require a level of doublethink even George Orwell could not help but be impressed by. And terrified....

(Here's the story, and it's a damned disturbing one at that, I might add: "[I] Pray For Barack Obama To Die And Go To Hell”: The Story The Media Missed)

And, please, can someone explain to me how "Democracy" means "If we can't have things our way, we'll take over with guns and make everyone live our way?" Plzkthnx....

OK. So a Buddhist Temple here was vandalized, with specifically Christian messages spray painted on the temple and signage, and statues defaced. This is the second time this has happened this year. (Story here and here)

In the comments on both of those stories, one can find statements like "It's not fair to assume the people who did this were Christian." and similar sentiments. Now look, I'm not saying this one act can be laid at the feet of all Christians everywhere. That's a basic fallacy of composition. However, I think it is absolutely fair to assume that it was done by a Christian, with an agenda of intimidation. The messages read "Buddah is in hell" not "Gooks go home." That would certainly seem to indicate that the motive isn't racist, it's not anti-immigrant, it's not an outburst of stress brought on by tough competition for jobs in hard times.

The temple was covered in crosses and sayings like "Christ lives." The motive is religious. Pure and simple. It is one more example of the mindset that this is a Christian country, and 'pagans,' like athiests, are not welcome here in the 'land-of-the-free-to-be-Christian.' However, the more serious problem lies in the immediate leap to defend the obvious religious motivation here.

When we then engage in dialog not about why religiously motivated hate crimes occur and are allowed (even sanctioned, though there has been no sanction, but also no condemnation from area churches in this case), but in attempting to diffuse the issue we ourselves facilitate those very crimes. Regardless of how one chooses to construe the Harris Poll's findings, I think it is quite clear that the rhetoric of violence, rebellion and insurrection in the name of Christianity is on an alarming rise. The 'Tea Party' movement has been proclaimed the 'new face of American democracy,' after all, and Palin is flogging the 'new revolution.'

And that makes this one act of violence significant. it makes every act of violence on religious (or political) grounds significant. We cannot keep excusing this. We cannot keep defending it, or dismissing it as a "few extreme individuals." Let's call a spade a spade, and let's get over our hesitation to call BULLSHIT when apologists try to de-emphasize the role of religion in hate crime.

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm

This is a Christian Slavery Apologetic. No, really. This article is a diatribe about how slavery in the south wasn't all bad, only the parts that were not in conformity with 'biblical slavery,' and 'biblical slavery' is OK, and fine and good because the Bible says so.

I quote:

"Provided he owns them in conformity to Christ's laws for such situations, the Bible is clear that Christians may own slaves."

And

"Today if an abortionist sought membership at either of our churches, he would be refused unless he repented and abandoned his murderous practice. But if our churches had existed in the ante bellum South, and a godly slave owner sought membership, we could not refuse him without seeking to be holier than Christ. Such a desire would be wicked, and this wickedness was at the heart of the abolitionist dogma."

This nutjob claims that Southern slave owners vigorously opposed the slave trade as 'wicked,' but evinced no hypocrisy by owning slaves. After all, they were doing the poor slaves a favor by taking them into Christian homes...

"The slave trade was an abomination. The Bible condemns it, and all who believe the Bible are bound to do the same. Owning slaves is not an abomination. The Bible does not condemn it, and those who believe the Bible are bound to refrain in the same way. But if we were to look in history for Christians who reflected this biblical balance — i.e. a hatred of the slave trade and an acceptance of slavery in itself under certain conditions — we will find ourselves looking at the ante bellum South."

I mean, wow. Seriously?

Read the article - I can't begin to relate how mind-boggling it is. The level of mental contortion required to actually advance such a position is... well, it's bloody insane.

...people thought I was a tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracy loon for suggesting things like this. *sigh* Good days, good days. Clearly, however, those days are OVER.



From the article on www.talktoaction.org:

According to the Washington Post the house is owned by Youth With a Mission D.C. Youth With a Mission is one of the most extensive Christian fundamentalist para-church organizations on Earth, and YWAM founder leader Loren Cunningham has publicly outlined a vision for Christian world-control.

In a 2008 promotional video, "Reclaiming 7 Mountains of Culture", Loren Cunningham describes a vision he shared along with the late Christian theologian Francis Schaeffer, in which Christian fundamentalists could achieve world domination by taking over key sectors of society such as business, government, media, and education.

(kickthehobbit posted this, and doctoreon re-posted it, and now it's my turn.)

If you're not pro-choice, and you are vocal and proud about not being pro-choice (including such lines as, "I don't understand how anyone could be pro-choice"), or if you allow discussion to happen in your journal that contains such gems as accusing George Tiller of being a "baby killer" that performed late-term abortions for fun, or allowing awful, awful trolling comments regarding what sluts and whores any woman that would ever have an abortion is?

I AM GOING TO DEFRIEND YOU.

If you want to foster discussion in your journal, fine.

If you are pro-life, and proud of it, but are respectful of those of us that are pro-choice, that's also fine. I won't defriend over either of those.

But if you're going to let people make ignorant-ass comments in your journal about how all abortions are totally wrong and 'oh my God how dare anyone ever get one', and also that George Tiller (who helped people like this and this) was a murderer, not bothering to step in when they start to attack one another or otherwise don't "foster" discussion so much as blindly attack anyone that comments back to them, citing irrelevant court cases in an attempt to prove that late-term abortion happens for reasons other than the mother's life/health being at risk/the fetus having deformities that are incompatible with life . . . that's not OK.

If you're going to let your journal turn into a pro-life circle jerk, then I'm out of here. Because seriously? Don't you fucking even try to play the, "But I am all for women's rights!" card when you're trying to restrict access to abortion.

I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but the only moral abortion is not your abortion. ALL ABORTION IS MORAL.

Brought to you by kickthehobbit.

If you're not pro-choice, and you are vocal and proud about not being pro-choice (including such lines as, "I don't understand how anyone could be pro-choice"), or if you allow discussion to happen in your journal that contains such gems as accusing George Tiller of being a "baby killer" that performed late-term abortions for fun, or allowing awful, <i>awful</i> trolling comments regarding what sluts and whores any woman that would ever have an abortion is? I AM GOING TO DEFRIEND YOU. If you want to foster discussion in your journal, fine. If you are pro-life, and proud of it, but are respectful of those of us that are pro-choice, that's also fine. I won't defriend over either of those. But if you're going to let people make ignorant-ass comments in your journal about how all abortions are totally wrong and 'oh my God how dare anyone ever get one', and also that George Tiller (who helped people like <a href="http://www.metafilter.com/82070/Pro-Life-does-not-mean-what-you-think-it-does#2585686">this</a> and <a href="http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=22002">this</a>) was a murderer, not bothering to step in when they start to attack one another or otherwise don't "foster" discussion so much as blindly attack anyone that comments back to them, citing irrelevant court cases in an attempt to prove that late-term abortion happens for reasons other than the mother's life/health being at risk/the fetus having deformities that are incompatible with life . . . that's not OK. If you're going to let your journal turn into a pro-life circle jerk, then I'm out of here. Because seriously? Don't you fucking even try to play the, "But I am all for women's rights!" card when you're trying to restrict access to abortion. I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but the <a href="http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html">only moral abortion is not your abortion</a>. ALL ABORTION IS MORAL. <a href="http://kickthehobbit.livejournal.com/292929.html">Brought to you by</a> <lj site="livejournal.com" user="kickthehobbit">.

I know, I'm a little behind the times on this; what can I say? I don't get to the theater much. This one is worth a review nevertheless. Trust me on this one, I'm not going where you think I am, keep reading.

Now, I've seen plenty of scathing criticism of this film, and not just from the religious right, or even the mildly religious. Atheists, anti-religionists, and liberals have lambasted Maher for this one as well. Essentially, the gripes revolve around two points. One is Maher's selection of the craziest of the crazy and the most extreme of the extreme in order to give an extreme picture of religion. The other complaint is that Maher is overly harsh, condescending, disrespectful and flat-out insulting to the people he interviews.

I'd have to say both of these are dead on. There were time in the first hour or so that even I, being a pretty outspoken and vehement anti-religionist, found myself wincing, thinking "Woah! That was harsh!" or "Yikes! Did he just say that?" And admittedly, he does not spend time talking to moderates; his interviewees are decidedly the oddest apples in the bunch. Both of these make Religulous a bit uncomfortable to watch, though incredibly funny.

That's the thing, though. Getting laughs out of the religious loons is easy sport; were the humor the real intent of this piece, I would have to call it a cheap shot, or rather, a long series of cheap shots. Love or hate Maher himself, one must admit that's not his brand of humor. That's how you know the humor isn't the point. It's the tool.

The humor is a tool, like his rudeness is a tool, like his selection of the kookiest of the kooks is a tool, like his leaving in the snippets of him being kicked out of the Vatican, or off the Mormon Temple lawn, is a tool. The purpose to which these tools are turned is nothing less than the dismantling of religion's Get Out of Jail Free card.

Bill Maher is not poking fun at religion to get a laugh. He is not being rude to religion to get a laugh. He's forcing us to see religion for what it is - delusional, irrational. Our habit of toleration and respect for religion is so ingrained, that it takes a lot to be shaken out of it. Even (perhaps especially) for liberals, who have so long chamioned the rights of the other to be who they are, who have fought for equality of the sexes, acceptance of race, non-discrimination; we more than anyone need to be forcibly shaken out of our tendency to be tolerant, our desire to get along.

For all the humor, Maher is deadly serious, and he's not wrong. It's crucial that we do let go of our tolerance for religion; our survival as a species may depend on it. It's not easy letting go of our toys, and leaving the childhood of humanity behind us, with its invisible friends and fairy tales and happy endings. It's not easy telling ourselves, or each other, that no, Santa's not real, and neither is God, there's no happily ever after, and only we can make (or break) a better world. But, like a child allowed to keep his toys and his childhood fantasies becomes a dysfunctional monster, humanity must grow up, or we will become a monstrous race, killing and devouring with a child's heedlessness, blindness and greed. As Maher says, our abilities to pollute, to kill, and to destroy have outstripped our ability to reason and to be rational. Religion is the security blanket, the pacifier, that keeps us from moving on.

That is Maher's mission - to rid us of the security blanket. As long as we treat it with reverence, we will never let it go. Religion is a very real threat. It will remain a threat as long as societies like ours continue to allow religion a pass on behavior and thinking which we would (and do) condemn in other contexts. This is a point I have argued for years, and if *I* was taken aback at Maher's blatant disrespect, clearly, we have along way to go.