Republican Race Remains Undecided

February 23, 2012

- See all 34 of my articles

MESA, AZ - FEBRUARY 22:  Republican presidenti...

Now that Rick Santorum won his trifecta of Colorado, Minnesota and a non-binding primary in Missouri, the race for the Republican nomination stays heated up and unsettled. However there is one thing that has seemed to return to the forefront, the so-called culture wars. My question is did they really leave? Sure, the Republicans tried to focus on the economy, but without offering any real plans they have returned to their bread and butter, forcing their views upon society. A big government intrusion into your life that they fully support and agree with. The “return of the culture wars might have been brought to the forefront by recent actions with healthcare access and the rise of Santorum in the race, but they have been there the whole time.

After taking over many statehouses this past election cycle on changing the economy, what was the first action of the legislatures in each of these states? Was it something to create jobs or balance budgets? No it was not. It was creating personhood amendments to their constitution to make life defined at conception.

Then you have issues like the recent proposals in Virginia that require anyone seeking to get an abortion to have a medically unneccessary transvaginal ultrasound without the womans consent and against any dissent from her own doctor. Yes Virginia, your state really wants to rape you! Granted now that the national spotlight has shined down on him and more importantly his ambitions to be a Vice Presidential candidate, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell has said the law should be amended to require consent. However it does not appear that the GOP in the legislature will consider such an amendment as the Senate has already has said no to such amendment. Going as far to say they would rather not pass the bill than require consent in it. Also there is no word if McDonnell and the GOP would retake up old measures they had in the past of require the investigation of a woman’s moral views and sexual history before an abortion. In the end though if they want to take up this I really do think they should take the other medically unneccessary exam that has been proposed for men. In order to get a Viagra prescription, men must undergo an involuntary rectal prostate exam and cardiac stress test. It brings gender equality into the stupidity and after all if God intended for you to have an erection, wouldn’t you have one without medicinal help?

Then you have the same bill from Virginia now being introduced in committee in Illinois. However, the anti-abortion Democrat (pretty much in name only) has decided that women must be animals or something. The committee he brought the bill before is the Agriculture committee. Mainly because of the conservative makeup of that committee, but I think it is a huge statement on what conservatives really think of women and their issues. It has passed that committee, but will thankfully will likely fail going forward from here.

It’s not just probing vaginas and abortion that the conservatives are getting all fired up for. Now birth control, something an overwhelming number of people in the country use or support is now under attack as well. Granted I get the issues the Catholic Church had with a mandate causing them to pay for something they did not believe in, but with the valid compromise that issue is a moot point. Not to them and conservatives and their new champion Rick Santorum that is 100% opposed to all birth control. It should not be allowed for anyone to have is what they are now clamoring. Now if I was a Jehovah’s witness and I don’t believe in blood transfusions as a matter of principle under my religion, should I deny any of my employees coverage for such healthcare as a matter of my own religious principle? With what the “We are all Catholics now” crowd is shouting at the moment that should be exactly the case.

Then you have a couple of pieces of legislation in my own new state of Tennessee. First you have one law being touted as the “Right to Bully” law which redefines the anti-bullying statute of schools to protect people from it being enforced if the bullying resulted from their own religious or political beliefs. Mainly if you hate gay people because your religion tells you so, then you are free to bully the crap out of them without fear of punishment for your actions. However it can be taken many ways, I have a deep down political hatred of Republicans, so if my kid took up my views and bullied some conservatives kid then heck he is rightfully free to do so under their new proposed law. The other piece of legislation to note here is a “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which prohibits teachers from teaching about the existence of gay people in K-8. Granted I really don’t know of much that is ever taught in those grades about homosexuality before this law, but I doubt it was even a blip. However with the new law it prohibits the teacher from any discussion about any material inconsistent with natural human reproduction, so you can’t even talk about gay people. Afterall in conservative world they do not exist, they are just all evil fornicating demons.

Speaking of things that do not exist, Santorum’s recent remarks on things have brought back things he has said in the past. He has had some missteps in discussing the theology of Obama. Back in 2008 Santorum said that there is no such thing as a liberal Christian. That the two do not exist together, as you can’t pick and choose which doctrines you choose to follow. So being a liberal and a Christian are not two things that can go together. Well Rick isn’t that what you do on a regular basis? Don’t you yourself pick and choose what parts of scripture you abide by and which you choose not to pretend exist. I am sure I have seen some picture of Santorum with a pork product in his hand and aiming towards his mouth.

As the figment of Rick’s imagination I must be, in being a liberal Christian myself. I take big offense to things like this that Rick and the “real” Christians like his spew out. I can have my own beliefs without thinking I need to force them upon others. Rick, if you actually followed those biblical passages I “pick and choose” the nation would be a much better place. As clearly one of my favorite passages such as Matthew 25 clearly have absolutely no value to a “real” Christian and the conservative movement.

Enhanced by Zemanta

7 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. kosmo
    Feb 23, 2012 @ 08:33:10

    Some of Christ’s own views seem fairly liberal.

    Then again, he was a Jew, not a Christian.

    Reply

  2. Martin Kelly
    Feb 23, 2012 @ 12:34:03

    Squirrel, I beg to differ on your example of not providing blood transfusions as a Jehovah’s witness. Birth control is not required to keep you alive. Secondly, Santorum is not against birth control, he is against forcing groups to pay for it who disagree with the practice. The only people publicly saying that anyone is against birth control are big news people and certain elected democrats accusing Santorum.

    Now to clarify, I am a Catholic, I use Birth Control and I am NOT a Santorum supporter. I do not think that anyone should have to pay for birth control for someone else, just as I don’t think anyone should have to pay for “viagra” or similar drugs for someone else. If someone want to buy an insurance policy that includes that, then let them go look for it. The government is “forcing” this coverage. What will we do when the goverment “disallows” some other coverage and there are no insurance packages left to cover the costs? We will have to pay for it ourselves, and those who cannot afford it will have to go without.

    All of this is a mute point since it is not the President making these descisions, it is the secreteary of Health and Human Services. If you do not like the policy, make sure you Senator vets the secretary and/or recovers legislative authority over this program rather than delegating to an executive branch office.

    Otherwise I agree with you. No one should declare what someone else is allowed to believe. If you are a liberal Christian, than so be it. If you are a conservative Seculary Humanist, so be it as well. I personnally am a Christian with very conservative views on fiscal questions, but moderate views on what are called social issues.

    One last thing – transvaginal ultra sounds – why? Have you seen the newest external sonagrams? They are incredable. You can see every detail, whether you are imaging a fetus or a heart. Sometime I wonder when laws are passed; are the legislators stupid or perverse?

    Reply

  3. Squeaky
    Feb 23, 2012 @ 13:59:28

    I’ll echo Martin on most of the topics.

    As for the liberal Christian, I believe what Santorum was trying to say is that with the religious teachings of most Christian religions, your religious beliefs and your political beliefs will likely be at odd with one another. I also understand what Squirrel is trying to point out…we don’t follow the Word 100% accurately so how can liberal Christians not exist? Squirrel is correct, there are liberal Christians. The point of the church however would be that if you are a practicing Catholic, Lutheran, etc you should examine your faith and your political persuasion more closely to see if they are properly aligned. We all violate His teachings and the Law of the Bible but we shouldn’t do it intentionally or blatantly.

    As for the transvaginal ultrasounds, those are required to see the fetus at early stages. My wife had one with one of the miscarriages that we had. They were not able to see the fetus through the abdomen, but vaginally it was easy to see it laying there. Not all hospitals and clinics will have the latest and greatest so in many locations transvaginal MAY be required. I stress the word MAY and wonder if there is any misinterpretation of the bill. As for using the word rape to describe a vaginal ultrasound, that seems inappropriate regardless of your political or religious persuasion.

    Squeaky…

    Reply

  4. kosmo
    Feb 23, 2012 @ 14:39:17

    ” I believe what Santorum was trying to say is that with the religious teachings of most Christian religions, your religious beliefs and your political beliefs will likely be at odds with one another.”

    And if this is what he was saying, I think he’s wrong. Perhaps SOME of your beliefs may be at odds with your religion, but not all. The GOP does not line up 100% with Christ’s teachings. So then Santorum would seem to be diregarding the situations where the GOP and Christian teachings are at odds with each other. Who is to say that the teachings that line up with the conservatives are more important than those that line up with liberals?

    Personally, I think you need to form your own conscience, spiritually and politically. Don’t let a politician – Democrat OR Republican – tell you that your views are wrong. You’re a person, not a robot.

    Reply

  5. The Angry Squirrel
    Feb 24, 2012 @ 21:03:08

    Squeaky: Well the interview I referenced did say that he did not think one could be a liberal and a Christian. As far as using the term rape there it was valid, not in the procedure itself, but requiring it without consent does fit the Virginia statutes on the definition rape there. As far as misinterpretation it really is not the case. The proposal there was was a requirment of a transvaginal ultrasound without consent. Meaning if someone sticks something up your private parts without you wanting them to it is defined as rape. Granted since I wrote this I have only minimally been able to follow things because of work stuff, but I know the state legislature was backing off of the transvaginal requirement and the without consent part. Also I love the lady in Georgia I think that proposed banning guys getting snipped. I am just waiting for Super Tuesday to get here since I am a registered Tennessee voter now and it is an open primary.

    Martin: Well I beg do differ with your disent on my blood transfusion comparison. THe Jehovah’s Witness employer is not saying you can’t recieve the treatment, they just aren’t going to pay for it. Just like the Catholic organization was not saying you could not have the birth control, they just are not going to provide it out of the religious conviction. So I think my analogy there is quite accurate and correct. Also Santorum has said many times that he is against birth control and does not think it should be legal.

    Reply

  6. Dropping In
    Feb 24, 2012 @ 22:13:09

    Birth control is not required to keep you alive.

    That depends on just how bad things are going to get if you become pregnant. Also, a substantial number of women use birth control pills for problems other than birth control.

    But I quite agree that the Catholic church shouldn’t be forced to provide insurance that covers birth control. Instead, the US should end the ridiculous historical accident of employer paid health insurance and join the first world in having a universal health care system.

    Reply

  7. Dropping In
    Feb 24, 2012 @ 22:22:27

    And because I’m an evil person I’m going to add…

    **Snicker.** You said “santorum”.

    Hey, someone had to say it.

    I don’t want Rick Santorum anywhere close to the presidency, but I am looking forward to a campaign full of double entendres, accidental or purposeful.

    I am sure I have seen some picture of Santorum with a pork product in his hand and aiming towards his mouth.

    I’m also reasonably sure his clothes are not all single fiber and I’ve never seen tassels on his sweaters.

    Reply

Leave a Reply