The Reverse Side of the Argument

Twice last month I agreed with the Catholic Church that their right to free exercise of religion is violated by the Obama administration mandate which would force their church affiliated institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraception products and services. I’ve not changed my mind.

But there’s another side to this argument.

If organized religions and churches in the United States of America want to get involved in politics and government; if they want to get into the business of providing public accommodations and doing things which have nothing whatever to do with religion; then they had better damn well realize that they will be subject to the laws which govern everyone.

Newly anointed Cardinal Timothy Dolan of the Archdiocese of New York called upon his sizable flock of Roman Catholic worshippers last week to become more involved in politics in what he called a "freedom of religion battle," regarding the controversy involving contraceptive coverage.

Speaking to a group of Catholic High School students, he said that the U.S. government is engaged in "an unwarranted, unprecedented radical intrusion." [T]hey "live in an era that seems to discover new rights every day." "We're not trying to impose our teachings on anybody, we’re simply saying, don't impose your teaching upon us and make us do as a church what we find unconscionable to do."

Perhaps the good Cardinal forgot that the government has exempted his church from the insurance requirement. Thus, his church is not mandated under the law to provide insurance coverage for contraception products and services to its employees. It’s the Catholic universities, hospitals, charitable associations and the like which remain under the law. They are all businesses open to the public. They are not churches.

Suppose the Catholic Church took the position that it would not treat homosexuals at its affiliated hospitals, which are public accommodations, because homosexuality is against the teachings of the Church, and the civil rights laws may be damned. How far do you think they would get with that argument?  They either have to treat everyone or get out of the public hospital business.

Student registered organizations at Vanderbilt University are subject to a non-discrimination policy which bans them from requiring their leaders to hold specific beliefs. Christian groups complain that this policy violates their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion.

“There are people on campus who are very threatened by the idea of religious freedom and they would like to create an environment where no one hurts anyone else’s feelings – unless it’s Christians,” whined Carol Swain, a Vanderbilt law professor and the advisor to the Christian Legal Society. Swain said what is happening to Christian students at Vanderbilt is scary, accusing the university of bullying people of faith.

The Christian Legal Society is one of four campus groups – including the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Beta Upsilon Chi and Graduate Student Fellowship – that are currently in violation of the policy. “This political correctness is running amuck on campus and its constraining one group – and that group tends to be conservatives,” says Swain. “They will be forced to either accept the university’s policy or leave campus by the end of the academic year. They are in limbo.”

Nonsense!

They will either accept the policy or become an unregistered student group that can still meet on campus without the special privileges afforded to registered students groups which don’t discriminate.

But the Christians want it both ways. They want the privileges which go with public accommodation status and they want to discriminate too.  

Vanderbilt officials say their nondiscrimination policy ensures that campus groups are open to all students. The school reviewed the charters and constitutions of all student organizations last year after a complaint was filed against a Christian fraternity that had discriminated against a student based on sexual orientation, said Beth Fortune, vice chancellor of public affairs

Fortune denies the university is going after Christians. “Our nondiscrimination policy applies equally to all registered student organizations,” she said. “We’re simply saying if you are going to be a registered student organization and use the Vanderbilt name and university funding, and have the privileges afforded a registered student organization, then you need to comply with our nondiscrimination policy.”

Unregistered student groups will not be banned from campus. “They are allowed to exist and freely assemble,” Fortune added. “But they would not be a registered student organization.” Can you imagine the Klu Klux Klan as a registered student group at Vanderbilt?

Meanwhile, in Hixson, Tennessee, presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, Mr. Biblical himself, brought a crowd to its feet when he told them "true happiness comes from doing God's will in your life" "True happiness comes from doing what you ought to do," he continued. "Real happiness is not doing whatever you want. In many ways it's self-sacrificial."

Then he criticized President Obama for not seeing things the way people in Chattanooga do, and because he wants government to be a neutral player when it comes to supporting marriage and families, thus dictating Americans' rights.

"Not rights given to you by God; no. President Obama isn't selling you those rights. He's telling you what rights he can create. And when government creates a right, they can take it away." "I carry a copy of the Constitution with me," [and] a copy of the Declaration of Independence said Mr. Biblical, because one without other is "like peanut butter without jelly, it doesn't work."

Well, maybe he does carry around copies of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence with him. Bully for him, and I hope he does. But my concern as an American citizen is whether he has read and whether he understands them. If he’s going to seek the public office of President of the United States, he had better realize that the job description does not include the doing of God’s will.

His Catholic Christian God never granted anyone the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. None of those rights are found anywhere in His Bible. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are both silent on the matter of what constitutes happiness, leaving it to the individual to decide – not the president – not the majority – not government.

So happiness is not officially doing God’s will or what one “ought to do” by the standards of Mr. Biblical, unless that is what an individual wants. Happiness is most definitely not self sacrifice as much as Mr. Biblical would like that to be so, and as much as he would love to force that concept upon us all.

When President Obama remains a neutral player in matters of supporting marriage, families, and religion, he’s doing exactly what the Constitution requires of him. He’s certainly not dictating anyone’s rights.

Rick Santorum and the religious right can’t have it both ways. If they want to take over the reins of government, they had better be prepared to keep their religion to themselves.

Shakedown on the Nile

Seven American “rights workers” including the son of U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, were allowed to leave Egypt after the U.S. bought their freedom for almost $5 million in “bail costs.”

$300,000 was spent for 16 people, nine of whom were already out of the country. The remaining workers had sought refuge at the U.S. embassy, fearing arrest. The money was apparently paid by certain American “nongovernmental organizations” that employ the workers, organizations which are all funded by the United States government.

"None were in custody or subject to arrest," explained Victoria Nuland, a U.S. State Department official. They were simply subject to travel restrictions, which she described as an "ordeal." They’re charged with operating without a license and using illegal foreign funds to foment unrest.

An Egyptian prosecutor announced that the individuals and their organizations, including the American funded International Republican Institute, are accused of espionage and being in contact with the CIA as well as providing reports on Egypt to the U.S. State Department.

Egyptian Judge, Mahmud Mohamed Shukry, adjourned the trial until April 26 to enable a diplomatic solution to be reached. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said American officials had been evaluating developments in the case. She described the situation as "fluid" with "a lot of moving parts."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said at a news conference on Capitol Hill Thursday that the Americans were on a plane out after Egypt lifted the travel ban and set the bail.

The International Republican Institute said in a statement that it welcomes the decision and is hopeful the charges will be dismissed.

"IRI views the decision as a positive development but remains very concerned about the situation and our Egyptian employees along with the continuing investigations of Egyptian civil society groups and the impact it will have on Egypt's ability to move forward with the democratic transition that so many Egyptians have sought," said the statement.

That’s nice; Blah, blah, blah.

If the charges are dismissed, do you think the $5 million will be returned?

No, I don’t think so either.

If the charges are not dismissed, do you think the Americans will show up for their trial on April 26^th?

No; not a chance.

Let’s see; these people were not in custody or subject to arrest, but the United States quickly pays out $5 million dollars to make the case go away.

Just like so much of what the United States government does, this deal doesn’t pass the smell test.

If those American “workers” were over there committing crimes; if they are truly criminals, why won’t our government allow them to go to trial and take their punishment? If you or I, or the average Joe Six-pack American slob committed crimes in Egypt, do you think the U.S. would fork over $300,000 of your taxpayer dollars to take care of it?

Again – not a chance. But if the son of a cabinet level secretary is involved, the sky is apparently the limit, and no questions are asked.

If they were not committing crimes, then this was nothing more than a deplorable Third World style shakedown and the corrupt Egyptian officials perpetrating it should not escape the diplomatic consequences.

Why do we continue to pay $billions of foreign aid, maintain an embassy and diplomatic relations with Egypt while at the same time allowing them to shamelessly shake us down for $millions in extra cash?

If I were a betting man, I’d put my money on the former. Those American “workers” were in Egypt to meddle into the affairs of the Egyptians on behalf of the United States government. They were spying on Egypt and reporting to the American State Department and the CIA. They were committing espionage and fomenting unrest with elements of the Egyptian people aligned with U.S. interests.

The Egyptian officials no doubt had them dead to rights. So once again, the United States has paid out big money; millions of taxpayer dollars to make the crimes of American agents, operatives and spooks go away.

No, it’s not the American government; it’s the average American citizen; you and me, who are the victims of this latest shakedown on the Nile.

Why Can’t I Go to Cuba?

I’ve always wanted to visit Cuba. It is a beautiful Caribbean island, I’m told, with many cultural attractions, nice people, great food, and lively music. But I’m an American and my government tells me that I am not at liberty to go there. If I do, I’d be committing a crime.  

Why?

I can go to Russia, communist China, and even Iran, the latest American designated bogey man nation, but I can’t go to Cuba, a nation that has never posed any threat whatsoever to me, or to the United States of America. I can visit just about any other nation in the world if they would have me, and I’m sure that Cuba would, but my Uncle Sam in the land of the free and home of the brave says “No!” You can’t go.

It wasn’t always that way. Back in the 1950’s and before, Cuba was the place to go for Americans looking for a good time. It was a safe, fashionable and cheap vacation spot, despite the fact that the Island was all mobbed up with probably one of the most corrupt governments on Earth.

Generalissimo Batista and his gang of right-wing fascist thugs had been in the business of looting and oppressing the Cuban people for years. The United States Navy used to dock vessels there on a regular basis to provide R and R for our sailors. They loved the place. Uncle Sam loved it too. My government wasn’t objecting to Cuba then as a vacation destination for me.

But then Batista went a bit too far, his people revolted for good reason, and their leader, Fidel Castro, a communist dictator, came to power. Now the Cubans are oppressed from the left instead of the right. He put an end to the corruption. He booted out the mob. In the process, he pissed off old Uncle Sam. And things haven’t been quite the same between our two nations since 1959.

The Russians tried to plant a few nuclear missiles there in 1962 when they thought they could get away with it. So Uncle Sam slapped an embargo on the Cuban people, a sanction which continues to this day despite the fact that the Russians backed down quickly and removed the threat.

Fidel Castro has never overtly threatened the American people even after our thugs tried to assassinate him several times. Most of the Cuban fat cats fled to the United States following the communist take-over. They’re the ones who want to punish Castro and the people they left behind.

So no American can do business with Cuba since then. We can’t sell to them. We can’t buy from them. We can’t even visit their beautiful island; much less enjoy their quality cigars. Cuba is our designated enemy simply because their government is communist and a bunch of Cuban American exiles are bitter about it.

China is communist too, and presents a far greater threat to us than Cuba, but they aren’t considered our enemy. Now I don’t like communism; in fact I hate it. I don’t like statism of any kind, including the brand practiced by my own government, but that doesn’t prevent me from doing business with statists as a practical matter and for my own good. I don’t boycott and embargo statists just because they are statists.

But a relatively small number of Cuban-American exiles, still bitter over the hated Fidel Castro for more than 50 years now have prevailed upon my government to prevent me from visiting Cuba.    

The Republican candidates for president are pandering to these folks to get their votes. Mitt Romney is no exception. He strongly criticized President Obama in a speech before a Cuban group in Miami for easing up slightly in relations between the United States and Cuba, and took a cheap shot at Castro in the process.

"If I'm fortunate to become the next president of the United States, it is my expectation that Fidel Castro will finally be taken off this planet," Romney told the US-Cuba Democracy PAC. "I doubt he'll take any time in the sky. He'll find a nether region to be more to his comfort."

What the hell did he mean by that? Will the United States of America be trying to assassinate a feeble old man again just because he’s a communist? That’s patently insane. Fidel Castro is clearly no threat to us now, if he ever was. He’s not even in power now. When he was in power he wanted to normalize relations with us.

Raul Castro, Fidel’s brother, the man in power now, wants to normalize relations. He actually wants me to visit his country. He wants to buy American products. He wants to sell to us. He wants to be friends. Left alone, Cuban communism will crumble from its own weight, just as it did in Russia, and just as it is doing in China.

But no – a few bitter Cuban exiles want to put a stop to it for spite. And his audience cheered when Romney faulted Obama for easing ever so slightly some restrictions on traveling and sending remittances to Cuba by Cuban-Americans.

"This president does not understand that by helping Castro, he is not helping the people of Cuba. He is hurting them. He is not putting forward a policy of freedom, he is accommodating and encouraging a policy of oppression," said Romney. "If I'm president of the United States, we will return to Helms-Burton and the law, [strict embargo sanctions] and we will not give Castro any gifts."

I guess I don’t understand either. I think it’s all a lot of nonsense. A half century of embargo has done absolutely nothing for Americans but has terribly and unfairly impoverished the Cuban people.

Why can’t I go to Cuba?

Why Can’t I Go to Cuba? – Part 2

Right Wingers Hate the Establishment Clause

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion … “

This so-called Establishment Clause is the very first written provision of the Bill of Rights found in the First Amendment of the ten original amendments to the United States Constitution.

The founders of this nation, some of whom were religious, and some not, all plainly desired that the new government be secular, i.e. concerned with temporal worldly matters not relating to religion. These wise men understood the danger of mixing government with religion and that is the reason they took pains in the Constitution to keep the two separate.

Most religious Americans understand and appreciate the sound reasons for the Establishment Clause. They know that the second written provision of the Bill of Rights, the very next phrase found in the same First Amendment, is the Free Exercise Clause which guarantees their right to worship as they choose without interference from the government. Thus, the two clauses fit perfectly together as one concept to protect the rights of all Americans in matters of personal conscience.

John F. Kennedy, in 1960, when he was a candidate for President of the United States, was obliged to reassure a skeptical public at the time that, as the first Catholic president, he would steadfastly adhere to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, especially the First Amendment Establishment Clause.

Many people were worried then, and rightly so, about whether Mr. Kennedy might possibly be controlled by the Pope in Rome instead of by his secular duties as president of a wholly secular United States government. Right wing socially conservative evangelical Protestant Christians were big believers in the Establishment Clause then. They understood and appreciated the reasons for it then.

Mr. Kennedy assured the nation that such fears were unfounded.

On Sept. 12, 1960, he declared: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the president — should he be Catholic — how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.”

“I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty; nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so.  I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none, who can attend any ceremony, service, or dinner his office may appropriately require of him to fulfill; and whose fulfillment of his presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual, or obligation,” Mr. Kennedy continued.

“If my church attempted to influence me in a way which was improper, or which affected adversely my responsibility as a public servant sworn to uphold the Constitution, then I would reply to them this was an improper action on their part; it was one to which I could not subscribe; that I was opposed to it. It would be an unfortunate breach of, an interference with the American political system,” candidate Kennedy concluded.

We know the rest of the story. JFK was elected as the first Catholic president and never once during his administration did he fail to abide by his promise.

Too bad the same can’t be said for the second possible Catholic president: Rick Santorum. Of President Kennedy’s faithful secular promise to the American people 52 years ago, Mr. Santorum declared recently that it makes him “want to throw up.”

Rick Santorum and the right-wingers of today hate the Establishment Clause. They’ve completely forgotten why they so ardently believed in it a half century ago when their own religious liberty, in their small minds, was apparently threatened by a Catholic who might have become a puppet of the Pope.

Mr. Santorum, a Catholic, has no intention of making such a promise. The very idea makes him nauseous. He doesn’t believe in a secular government. He’ll rip the Establishment Clause to shreds if elected president.

So would Newt Gingrich. Just last Sunday, in fact, Mr. Gingrich was warning members of First Redeemer Church in Cumming Georgia, that the “secular left" is trying to undermine American principles established by the Founding Fathers. Americans have faced a "50-year assault" by those trying to alienate people of faith, whined Gingrich.

"The forces of the secular left believe passionately and deeply, and with frankly a religious fervor, in their world view and they will regard what I am saying as a horrifying assault on what they think is the truth," said Gingrich; "Because their version of the truth is to have a totally neutral government that has no meaning."

Huh? Since when is abiding by our secular Constitution akin to his irrational religious fervor? What principles is he talking about?  And what in the name of reason and logic is wrong with a government which is neutral in matters of religion?

The meaning of the secular government conceived by our founding fathers has totally escaped the pea brain of Newt Gingrich. He just doesn’t understand the Establishment Clause. He hates it as though it were the Devil talking.  

Todd Starnes, the in house right-wing religious pundit at Fox News, just can’t understand why public school teachers and administrators aren’t allowed daily to lead students in prayer. Regarding the Chardon, Ohio, High School shooting on Monday, in which a deranged student opened fire on fellow students in the school cafeteria, he wonders why the school superintendent was allowed to call on people to pray -- “It was a wise decision”-- but can’t do it during normal times.

“But perhaps lost in the chaos is the irony that in American public schools – people are not allowed to pray… Liberals have successfully banished God from the classroom, replacing Him with the manmade god of secularism.” He laments.

Nonsense! People have always been allowed to pray. Students have always been allowed to pray. Mr. Starnes is deliberately distorting the facts as right-wing religious Establishment Clause haters always do. That school superintendent made a poor decision. No one will call him on it under the circumstances, but school superintendent's are not authorized to call people to prayer, regardless of the situation, period.

People are allowed to pray anywhere, anytime, anyhow. But the government must remain neutral. The government must not be involved. The government is secular. That was the intent of the founders.

God of secularism; what’s that? I’ve never heard of him.

The Madness of Fantasy

Madness, insanity if you will, may be defined as a failure or refusal in a mind using consciousness to differentiate between fact and fantasy. This is the major fault with human consciousness as described in my book, “Authority! Implications of Consciousness and the Reality of Existence.”

Consciousness, characterized by conceptual language, is a cultural, i.e. learned adaptation which distinguishes human beings from all other species on the planet. It represents the foundation of civilization as we know it, and everything that is good about human beings. But it is also the foundation for deception, falsehood and madness, the nature of which afflicts no other species, and everything that is bad about human beings.   

Fantasy, the product of consciousness, might be good or bad depending upon whether the individual engaging in it recognizes it for what it is. It can be benevolent or malevolent for civilization. In no case is it more malevolent, however, than with organized religion.

Those who accept fantasy above reality are usually deemed insane, except particularly in the case of organized religion, which seems to engender large measures of respect and credibility even from people who don’t practice it. There are many millions of people who actually believe that their fantasy is more important than reality and are willing to kill innocent people in order to preserve and protect it.

Consider the recent religious uproar in Afghanistan over the burning of the Koran by NATO forces at Bagram airfield. Two American military officers were shot dead at close range inside the Interior Ministry last Saturday, as mindless religious rage continued to grip the country for a fifth day over the burning of the Muslim holy book.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the shootings. The killer would have had to have the highest security clearance to get into the room where the officers were killed according to news reports. So the murderer was not just some ordinary riff raff from the street, but someone trusted with rank and importance that infiltrated the U.S. command.   

NATO is recalling staff from its Afghan ministries because the Afghan security forces simply cannot be trusted not to carry out more of these kinds of murderous attacks. The deluded Afghan religious savages consider the Koran to be the literal word of God and, therefore, desecration of a paper book is regarded as the worst sort of blasphemy. Any desecration, whether intentional or unintentional, in their minds gives them a license to kill.

Thousands of Afghans have taken to the streets and at least 27 people have been killed since Afghan laborers at the NATO base found charred copies of the Koran while collecting rubbish. Two other American soldiers were shot dead last Thursday by an Afghan national army soldier who joined the frenzied mob.

Another angry Afghan mob stormed a UN compound in northern Balkh province killing seven people last year after the loons found out that one attention seeking Christian minister in Florida burned a copy of the Koran. Religion, instead of civilizing these fanatics, has had the effect of un-civilizing them. They are dangerous to themselves and others because of religion.  

In Padang, Indonesia a civil servant who posted “God does not exist” on his Facebook page faces a maximum penalty of five years behind bars for blasphemy. The man was attacked by an angry mob on his way to work and then hauled away by police after his factually correct post triggered public outcry in the predominantly Muslim nation.

Indonesia, you see, a supposedly civilized nation of 240 million people, allows only five religions by law. Atheism is illegal there. So an honest man was charged with the “crime” of using a social networking site to spread beliefs that violate the law. Exposing fantasy for what it is in Indonesia is a “crime.” The population of that country is apparently deathly afraid of anyone having the guts to point out the truth of their madness.

Meanwhile, in the crazed Islamic Republic of Iran, a former Muslim citizen, who went over the fence to Christianity and became a Christian pastor, has been sentenced to death. That’s because, in Iran, one is not supposed to change religions unless the change is to Islam. These deluded religious savages kill their own people for the “crime” of apostasy. So another poor innocent soul is going to die for refusing to recant his belief in Jesus and declining to recognize Muhammad as his savior.

All of this madness has been going on in the world just within the last week. Billions of human beings on this planet are still living in the Dark Ages.

Not that long ago it was the Christians who were also in the business of killing people who refused to believe. Blasphemy, apostasy, witchcraft, paganism, and just plain old atheism, agnosticism, and freethinking would result in the most excruciating forms of torture and execution for innocent proponents, all for the purpose of perpetuating the madness of fantasy over reality.

There are still some Christian American politicians even today who would love to take us all back to the good old days of yore when blasphemy was a crime and not believing right would get you death. Thankfully, they are slowly losing their influence in the west.

Sadly, it won’t happen in my lifetime, but the time will eventually come on this Earth when every organized religion has been mocked, excoriated, and laughed out of existence and the madness part of fantasy will finally be cured.

Rick Santorum: Mr. Biblical for President, Part 2

My last post discussed the numerous reasons supporting my conclusion that Rick Santorum personifies the term “religious bigot,” and why his criticism of President Obama for leading America based on a so-called theology different from that in the Bible, amounts to clear evidence of his own intent if elected president to govern us by his Catholic Biblical theology.

Today, I will demonstrate once and for all, from the candidates own mouth, the fundamental irrationality within the mind of Rick Santorum, Mr. Biblical, and why, if nominated by the Republican Party, Barrack Obama is virtually certain to win the general election.

When it comes to politics and government, Mr. Biblical tends to view the world in stark terms of black and white – good and evil. He actually believes that Satan has his sights on America and that his mission as president will be to lead our nation on a crusade of spiritual warfare.

Four years ago, in 2008, when he wasn’t running for any office, Mr. Biblical told a socially conservative Catholic audience at Florida’s Ave Maria University in so many words that president Obama's position on abortion was the work of Satan.

Quoting Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo, North Dakota, he argued: “Catholics who support so-called ‘abortion rights’ support a false right, promote a culture of death and are guarded by the father of lies." Then he praised the bishop for pledging to deny communion to politicians who support abortion rights saying the matter went beyond politics and was a symptom of Satan’s reach in U.S. society.

"This is not a political war at all, this is not a culture war at all, this is a spiritual war," declared Mr. Biblical. "And the father of lies has his sights on what you think the father of lies, Satan, would have his sights on -- A good, decent, powerful, influential country, the United States of America."

"If you were Satan, who would you attack?" he continued. "There's no one else to go after other than the United States, and that's been the case, for now, almost 200 years."

Then Mr. Biblical described in detail how the devil has attacked the United States in several areas: its foundations, academia, the Protestant Church and government.

Satan attacks us as a nation, and our great institutions, "using those great vices of pride, vanity and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition," First, Satan successfully, attacked academia.  After academia fell to pride and its own truths, the Protestant Church fell next in the United States, according to Mr. Biblical.

"We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country, and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it," insisted the Catholic, Mr. Biblical, against his fellow Protestant Christians.

Next, he denounced American culture; the National Basketball Association, for example, along with rock concerts and movies. "They are peacocks on display, and they have taken their poor behavior and made it fashionable," all of which is just more evidence of spiritual warfare.

Politics and government have also “fallen to Satan,” insists Mr. Biblical, referring to then presidential candidate Barrack Obama’s position on abortion and a response he made during an interview in 2004 on the question of “What is sin?” "Being out of alignment with my values," Obama replied.

"So now we have the first truly post-modern presidential candidate. Clearly, explicitly defining his own reality," huffed Mr. Biblical.

"I’m a person of faith. I believe in good and evil," Mr. Biblical told CNN in Arizona this week regarding his Ave Maria University speech. "If somehow or another because you’re a person of faith and you believe in good and evil is a disqualifier for president, we’re going to have a very small pool of candidates who can run for president," he insisted.

Oh, I don’t think so, Mr. Biblical. Most if not all of the candidates would describe themselves as person’s of faith and believers in the concept of good and evil, but I seriously doubt that they would make a public speech attributing all of America’s ills to the work of Satan and vowing to enter America into a state of spiritual warfare. Sure, the Bible thumpers love it but most rational people would be appalled.

"If Rick Santorum is the commander in chief, he will do what no other president has had the courage to do: declare war on hell,” joked Stephen Colbert on his comedy show. "It's simple: All we have to do is take our nuclear missiles out of their silos and put them back in upside-down."

Rick Santorum: Mr. Biblical for President

Last month I pointed out in morbid detail all the evidence indicating that Rick Santorum is the physical embodiment of the term “religious bigot.”  This man, perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not, revealed his true character once again last week when he explained to an ultra religious socially conservative audience that President Barack Obama leads this nation based on a theology different from that in the Bible.

“You may want to call it a theology; you may want to call it secular values. Whatever you want to call it… it is a different set of moral values that they are imposing on people who have a constitutional right to have their own values within the church,” he declared to thunderous applause.

Obama is not motivated by "your quality of life,” Santorum continued. Obama has reached a “low in this country’s history of oppressing religious freedom that we have never seen before.”“In the Christian church there are a lot of different stripes of Christianity… I’m just saying he’s imposing his values on the church and I think that’s wrong,” he said.

Liberals on “the left” have been imposing their own moral code on Americans for quite some time, he added. “You can call it a theology, you can call it a moral code, you can call it a world view,” “They want to impose [that] on everybody else while they insist and complain that somehow or another people of Judeo Christian faith are intolerant of their new moral code.”

To me his message is crystal clear: If elected President of the United States, Rick Santorum would lead this nation on the theology of the Holy Bible. Rick Santorum is an unabashed Christian theocrat. He’s Mr. Biblical. As president, he’ll impose his own religious values on us.

After his remarks raised media eyebrows, however, he tried to backpedal:  "I wasn't suggesting the president's not a Christian. I accept the fact that the president is a Christian," he said. "I was talking about the radical environmentalist; I was talking about energy, this idea that man is here to serve the Earth as opposed to husband its resources and be good stewards of the Earth. And I think that is a phony ideal.”

Right; it wasn’t about religion. It was really about energy. It just came out wrong. "I mean, this is just all an attempt to, you know, to centralize power and to give more power to the government," Santorum said. Sure, Barrack Obama is a Christian – just not the right kind of Christian according the Mr. Biblical. He’s not Biblical enough.

Then he tried to do a complete flip-flop on his position against birth control: He claims he’s been misconstrued by the difference between his public policy position, and his personal beliefs which are guided by his Catholic faith. "I support Title X, I guess it is, and have voted for contraception and although I don't think it works, I think it's harmful to women, I think it's harmful to our society," he said in an interview with Fox News.

But his campaign website says he wants to "repeal Clinton-era Title X family planning regulations, and will direct HHS to restore the separation of Title X family planning from abortion practices and restore a ban on referrals for abortion."

He voted for contraception but thinks it’s harmful for women and society and wants to repeal it. He believes that abstinence education is the better alternative to birth control. So what exactly is his position again? 

Last March, Rick Santorum insisted that America should go to war over “moral” values. The fact is that Rick Santorum has pledged to repeal all federal funding for contraception and allow the states to outlaw birth control: “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.”

“Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be,” he preached recently. I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young.

Asked once if he would allow the police to search marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives, he replied: “[t]he state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right; the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.”

That’s because Rick Santorum actually believes in his heart that there is no human right to privacy in the United States of America. "[The] right to privacy…doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution," he once declared.

There is no fundamental right to privacy and absolutely no right to gay marriage either according to Mr. Biblical. “[When] I say things like marriage should be between one man and one woman, I’m called a bigot,” he readily admits. He signed a solemn pledge and voted “yes” on a proposed federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. In fact, he wouldn’t offer any legal protections at all to gay relationships and has pledged to annul all same-sex marriages if elected president.

Mr. Biblical believes that religious people have a constitutional right to discriminate against gays: “We have a right in 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.” Santorum once declared.

“Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.” “[Gay marriage] threatens my marriage. It threatens all marriages. It threatens the traditional values of this country.”

So marriage has nothing to do with love in the mind of Mr. Biblical. And he is disgusted by gay people. “Gay people should stop being gay… This is common sense. This is nature, and what we’re trying to do is defy nature because a certain group of people want to be affirmed by society.”

“Life begins at conception, no exceptions for incest, rape, or the life of the mother, and doctors performing abortions should be criminally charged,” proclaims Mr. Biblical on the subject of abortion.

“The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions; I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire,” opines Mr. Biblical on the issue of whether the fundamental right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, includes an individual’s right to pursue his or her own wants and desires.

Mr. Biblical also rejects the concept of cultural diversity for America: “The elementary error of relativism becomes clear when we look at multiculturalism. Sometime in the 1980s, universities began to champion the importance of “diversity” as a central educational value… The goal of diversity is wrong.”

Mr. Biblical approves of torture: “[John McCain] doesn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works. I mean, you break somebody, and after they’re broken, they become cooperative. And that’s when we got this information.”

Mr. Biblical approves of murder: “The U.S. should assassinate certain nuclear scientists from countries like Russia, North Korea and Iran.”

“The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical,” says Mr. Biblical.   

Mr. Biblical says of Democrats in America: “The American Left hates Christendom. They hate Western civilization.”

“Poor children should have to suffer hunger and other ills to prevent them from developing the sense of entitlement that comes from relying on government social programs... suffering, if you’re a Christian, suffering is part of life… Isn’t that what Jesus meant by suffer the little children?’” asks Mr. Biblical.

Mr. Biblical wants a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration; a loosening of restrictions on cell phone wiretapping; increased penalties for drug offenses; and reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act.

The government shouldn't require health care providers to cover prenatal tests like amniocentesis, which can determine the possibility of Down syndrome or other fetal problems, said Mr. Biblical last Sunday – not because it’s big brother government – but because amniocentesis "more often than not" results in abortion.

But then Mr. Biblical admitted that such prenatal testing revealed his own three year-old daughter’s chromosome disorder that often results in stillbirths or early childhood death. Such testing is good enough for him and his family but should not be part of every health care policy.

He and his wife decided against an abortion, which was their right, but other families would probably decide differently, and Mr. Biblical doesn’t like that idea. He laments the fact that in such cases "we know that 90% of Down syndrome children are aborted."

And he insisted that it’s President Obama, not him, whose intent on starting a cultural war. His ultra-right-wing socially conservative and religiously oriented audience loved it and roared with applause.

As president, he will call upon the country to build a foundation that will "defend the church, defend the family, defend the nonprofit community, defend them from a government that wants to weaken them," promised Mr. Biblical.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that.