The deal about religious freedom and religion in politics

Democrats are picking at what they perceive to be weak spots on the Right, thus, they started the contraceptive brouhaha and turned it into a Religious Right Hate Women and Deny Their Ownership of Their Own Their Bodies. Nancy Pelosi jumped the shark by parading Sandra Fluke before the nation -- a thirty year old "useful idiot" who went to Georgetown just so she could agitate for contraceptive coverage.

In the meanwhile, the Whitehouse is advising the Catholic Church that enlightened technocrats within the enlightened State have solved the problem of the Church being forced to provide contraceptives and hope that all will be well before election time. Not to worry, though, polls show Catholics are still on the Obama train.

Obama, Democrats and the Left, for the most part, underestimate the power of religion in America, but the Right has got to get their act together, if they want to provide a united front against statism. Religious people, of all people in America, should understand the danger of a powerful State which is constantly invigorated and strengthened by an interventionist government. Obamacare is just getting started, and religious groups are just one of the first groups to be jerked around and patronized.

The worst thing that Christians can do is pull in and isolate themselves from humanists who might be spiritually fit but don't belong to an organized religion. On Glenn Beck's show today, Glenn violated his own openmindedness when it comes to variety of spiritual experiences, something he should have ingrained in his thought by now. Glenn and Pat Gray talked as if a person is not an evangelical type Christian then they just can't understand goodness. I know Beck doesn't believe this, but many good intentioned religious people can become closeminded when they feel under attack. And anyone listening to Beck for the first time would think Beck is a religious fanatic, not the good kind of fanatic.

Although Christianity as practiced by fundamentalists is under attack, Christians should be better than the attackers and show the type of humility and openmindedness that inspires admiration. I don't mean openmindedness which violates principles to get along, but the type of openmindedness that views spirituality with a broad lens. It's only when Christians shift to the political realm in an effort to enforce their beliefs on others that Christianity becomes a problem. All rational, good, moral people understand and admire strong Christian men and women who walk like they talk, don't force anyone and humbly speak their message when the opportunity arises. I know that "good" and "moral" are subjective terms, but we all understand basically what the terms relate to -- honesty, integrity, good humor, sincerity, humility, charity, etc.

As Glenn has said before, and must have temporarily forgotten today, as Pat Gray preached his message of intolerance and ridicule regarding secularist humanists, Christians should follow the lead of MLK and Gandhi -- let the attacks bounce off of them and resist playing tit for tat -- Love in spite of hate against you. It's difficult, but it leads to better results than political battles seeking the power to coerce. Fight for total liberty, even the liberty to sin, as your religions sees sin, as long as no one else is harmed, and all will be well. It's a matter of attraction, not promotion -- of persuasion, not coercion -- of competition and cooperation, not power to force against the will.

But, Santorum is authentic!

I've even heard progressive say that Santorum is authentic, with a straight face. These sharks on the Left would eat Santorum alive if they thought he was close to defeating Obama, so it's hilarious to watch them give positive feedback about his candidacy. This has to be the height of deceit on the Left, and even the Republicans who want to prevent Romney from running away are not really convincing when they talk about Santorum's honesty and working class appeal.

Santorum might be authentic or he might as phony as a 3 dollar bill, but his ideas are dangerous, and he has as much chance of defeating Obama as I do. I would have to vote for Gary Johnson if Santorum is the nominee. I'm still hoping that the three wins for Santorum were a temporary fluke reaction to the Catholic controversy, because if conservatives are still that religiously fanatical that they will go for Santorum, then we've got national problems that could bring our country down. I'm not anti-religious, but I don't pander to religious people. Some on the Right are afraid to stand up to the Religious Right, although they themselves are not fanatically religious. If any group of religious Republicans think  Santorum represents Christian values as understood by most Americans, then they're delusional. Santorum has even said that protestantism in the US is in shambles. Santorum is starting a religious war, and there might be enough fanatics to follow him, but I have to think when people find out what Santorum respresents, their religious emotions will calm down and reason will prevail.

Santorum is attempting a populist end around to the nomination, and he's depending on an emotional reactionary movement of Christians who think liberals and libertarians are sending America to hell. Come on, Christians. This type of emotional irrationality is what broke up the Religious Right to start with -- it's too extreme and judgmental. Yes, there's a lot of loose behavior in America, and there's banality in art and music, but to think our time is worse than others is to be ignorant of history, besides, all this prudishness has little to do with spirituality.

Please, conservatives, don't fall for Santorum -- he's a control-freak whose intolerance and disregard for freedom are very un-Christian.

The Right's big moment of decision

 A few years ago I wrote that with the gradual loss of freedom in a shaky world that's becoming shakier as each day passes, Americans will either bring forth a new era of liberty, innovation, spiritual revival and economic growth or Americans will shrink in fear and look for protection provided by some strong leader who convinces the public that the problems we face are so great that liberty must be restricted further, temporarily, so that we can stabilze the country by promoting fiancial security and physical safety. 

Obama called the latter reaction clinging to guns and religion, or something like that. Many of the current candidates are calling for the former reaction, but they mostly imply that the right government can bring about a new era of liberty, innovation, spiritual revival and economic growth, although most of the Republicans say that government is too big and that the private sector must be empowered. This confusion comes about when candidates talk about "creating jobs", then in the next breath talk about the dangers of government interventions. Gingrich and Romney have talked about economic freedom and how the private sector can create economic growth, etc., and Santorum has talked about the middle class and workers being able to make progress, if only government would stop interfering.

None of the candidates other than Paul address government intervention head on in philosophical terms and call for an end to government programs which overstep Constitiutional bounds. Santorum thinks the libertarian, philosophical view of anti-statism means promoting "no-government" -- he rejects it -- and, if you pushed Romney and Gingrich, like liberals in media do, by giving certain scenarios of what would happen to poor people, sick kids and old people if certain programs are eliminated and certain powers of government are limited, they, like Santorum, will reject the libertarian/limited government/free market position, and they will say something like -- Oh, well, we need a strong government that looks after the most needy, and we need some programs to make sure no one slips through the cracks, and...you get the picture -- you've heard it all, over and over.

The Republican Party has been like this for a long time -- when push comes to shove, Republicans capitulate to the statists, and government grows, never shrinks and never pulls in the power from previous expansions by creating limits. Now, though, we can't afford the expansion -- we have to reign in government power in order to control the costs and actually reduce spending in a real way. That's not all, though. Our problems are not only in government spending, and the problem with a powerful government is not only the cost of such a government. Slowly, government is entering every nook and cranny of our lives. Right, Center and Left all have their ideas of how society should behave, how we should think, how and what we should believe. The civil libertarian idea of allowing free adults to decide for themselves what they believe and how they want to live, as long as it's not violating the rights of others, is accepted by fewer in government than ever before, it seems, when you would think the opposite should be true -- that we would have advanced by now to live our own lifestyles in peace and open-minded understanding. I guess the desire to control and exercise power over others never disappears, but, in the 21st century, you would think we'd have strong limits in place to prevent this desire from interfering in our pursuit of happiness. Instead, we have Obama and the progressives attemping to control all our economic activities from the type car we drive to our healthcare to what we eat and on and on.

Then we have Rick Santorum on the Right gaining support in the Republican primary just when many thought the Right was over strongarm social conservativism and moral legislation. Every day we see a new quote from something Santorum has said in the past regarding his moral views and how he thinks government plays a role in legislating morality -- he's also stated he will fight all libertarian influence in the GOP. My fear that Americans would react to uncertainty in the world and to the failure of statism from the Left by turning to a Moral Warrior who promises to return America to decency, God and the American Way of Life, could be coming to fruition, although I hope not, at least not through government control. The way to beat statism and power-mongering is not through more statism and greater power-mongering. The way to beat statism is through limits to government power, and creation of liberty in the economic realm. It's one thing for Chrisitians to pull together and attempt to revive their way of life, but not through government power, not through limiting the freedom of others, not through legislating morality. What the Right has to understand is that liberty means people will act in ways that are counter to Christian morality, but any attempt to control the immoral (immoral to the Christian who's judging) behavior and legislate moral behavior is worse than the immoral behavior.

We can't regress to rightwing, fascist, strongman control in reaction to what the Right sees as dissolution of morals as Satan destroys the soul of America. If that's what some Christians really believe then seek voluntary change -- don't follow a charlatan like Santorum who pretends to be a Christian warrior battling Satan's control over the public. Santorum is a politician who's seeking power, and anyone who promises to fight those who promote limited government and a free market is not a warrior for Good, but rather a banal power-freak looking to control others. Jesus wouldn't have asked for political power to spread His message -- Jesus would have been closer to libertarianism than to Santorum's perverted, statist world-view.

Up with Chris Hayes 2/18/2012 -- Santorum's freaky views

On Up with Chris Hayes this morning there were the usual Lefties with one centrist, Reihan Salam. They discussed the current propaganda twist pushed by media that the Right is fighting against women's rights. The controversy over Obamacare and mandates rejected by the Catholic Church was an issue of liberty and anti-statism pushed by libertarians and limited government conservatives. Through a combination of political spin from Obama, Democrats in general, and media, and Rick Santorum talking the bait and talking about contraception and unauthorized sex, the issue now has become a battle between women and Republicans.

Hayes had on a Republican women in congress who believes that the Republican Party is gender stupid. I think they, many of them, are just stupid -- they are liberty stupid. Republicans are falling in the trap of women's rights because they don't know how to frame the large issue of liberty and anti-statism. But, then, there are Republicans like Rick Santorum who understand the big issue of liberty but are  coopting the Republican Party to fight a religious war against libertarians, liberals and anyone who doesn't agree with strict Christian dogma as understood by Santorum and the serious, statist, Religious Right.

I thought we were past this type of religious statism in the Republican Party. I have no problem with Republicans being social conservatives who seek to influence people through persuasion, but when they enter politics, they should make it cystal clear that they have no intentions to use legislation to enforce morals on the American people. Santorum not only doesn't make it clear he won't use government to legislate morality, he has stated it's government business to govern in the bedroom -- and Santorum has said he will fight against libertarian influence in the GOP.

If Republicans want  to give ammunition to Leftists like Chris Hayes and his guests and help Obama win,  then they are doing the right thing by supporting Santorum. I'm hoping this is mostly media created to divide the Republican Party and that Religious Right statism is not taking over the Republican Party -- if it is, the GOP is over.

Is Rick Perry for real

I'm hearing that people in Texas say Perry is a changed man from the political, Big Government opportunist I have believed him to be. I'm willing to admit I might have misread him. Perry should come out with his overall political views so that we can get a good idea of what kind of President he would be.

Will Perry bog us down further in foreign interventions? This, to me, is one of the biggest issues facing Republican candidates. Who will develope a doctrine fit for the 21st century -- one which keeps America out of foreign entanglements?

Does Perry believe in limited government, and not just limited to prohibition of Leftist statism, but also prohibition of Rightist statism? Is Perry prepared to anger many on the Right by stating that government has no business regulating marriage? Will Perry call for an end to all corporate welfare? Will Perry fight to reform taxes so that they are not burdensome or skewed toward those with the wherewithal to hire expensive tax attorneys?

Will Perry explain the reality of entitlements to the American people and challenge insurance companies to come up with comprehensive plans to replace the government safety net for middle class and wealthy Americans? Will Perry call for a transition from the welfare state to private assistance? Will Perry at least eliminate the DOE? Further, will Perry propose a transition from public to private education, calling on industry to committ to helping kids who whose families can't afford private fees?

Will Perry fight to remove all wealth killing regulations that block economic progress? Will Perry propose a separation of State and Economy?

Will Perry explain to the Religious Right that religion is personal and government is a secular matter established mainly to protect individual rights and freedoms, especially civil liberities? Will Perry make it clear that he won't use government as a moral enforcer to socially engineer the moralist's preferences for behavior if that behavior is not coercing anyone else to follow?

Will Perry follow through and challenge the Fed to open its books and call for a full investigation of Fed actions in the economy and dealings with foreign banks?

These are a few questions that would help clear up the question of whether Perry is a fraud or the real deal.