Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

This is a non-issue ...move on .

---

Hello again, tom:

Said, the old white guy..

excon

Again I'd like to contrast that to the Obama preferrred method... which is to impose his pseudo-secular/liberation theology on the nation with edicts(unilaterally redefining what religion is ) and bureaucratic rulemaking.

Oh wait . He was given that authority from a Democrat majority House and a fillibuster proof Democrat Senate .

I can see your concern . Your guy does it so you think that Santorum naturally would also violate the Constitution.

Hello again, tom:

So, I guess your NON answer to my question means you absolutely believe that Santorum will instill a Theocracy, and you'll be THRILLED by it.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

So, I guess your NON answer to my question means you absolutely believe that Santorum will instill a Theocracy, and you'll be THRILLED by it.

excon

---

Back to this old boogeyman, eh? No one, barring say Fred Phelps, WANTS a theocracy. I DO want my first amendment back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Back to this old boogeyman, eh? No one, barring say Fred Phelps, WANTS a theocracy. I DO want my first amendment back.

---

People ARE talking about the issue:

Dear Rick Santorum, America Elects Presidents Not Popes

Rick Santorum Announces He Doesn’t Believe In the Separation of Church and State

G'morning, Steve:

Since tom has stonewalled me, maybe YOU'LL be straightforward with me...

It IS true - nobody is talking about banning birth control NOW.. But, let's say that Santorum wins and you acquire a filibuster proof Senate, and some winger like Joe Walsh or Allen West submits a bill to DO that very thing...

What's going to happen with that bill?

If it's NOT the boogyman I think it is, why don't you allay my fears? Look, on the other website people are asking questions, like if Obama goes to Mars, what will Michelle do...

MY question, isn't one of those... The scenario I point out is a VERY REAL possibility. I want to know what would happen to that bill.

Yes, yes, yes. Santorum WOULDN'T bring up the bill himself.. But, he took a LOT of flack over the weekend for caving on his "integrity" and his "principals". He said he WON'T do it again... Given that statement, if a bill to ban contraceptives passed BOTH houses of a Republican congress, Santorum WOULD sign it.

Tell me that won't happen...

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

People ARE talking about the issue:

Dear Rick Santorum, America Elects Presidents Not Popes

Rick Santorum Announces He Doesn’t Believe In the Separation of Church and State

---

Exactly where in any of that did Santorum wish for a theocracy? Nowhere. I don't care what people are talking about, I'll welcome them back to reality if they'd like to join me.

I agree wholeheartedly with what he said in the Post article:

Quote:

---

“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said. “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country."

---

Nothing wrong with that, he's spot on. Our constitution expressly forbids a state church, it does not ban God from government.

love how you cling to them strawmen Ex. Santorum has been clear that he would not move to ban birth control in a number of interviews now. Either you believe him or you don't .

His biggest weakness in this whole thing ,in my view ,is how easy it is for the left to goad him into talking straight talk about his values instead of the vague pablum most other pols. Say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

G'morning, Steve:

Since tom has stonewalled me, maybe YOU'LL be straightforward with me...

It IS true - nobody is talking about banning birth control NOW.. But, let's say that Santorum wins and you acquire a filibuster proof Senate, and some winger like Joe Walsh or Allen West submits a bill to DO that very thing...

---

It's a non-issue ex, I can't be any more straightforward than that. You admit repeatedly that no one is talking about it. It did not come up until Stephanoupolus blindsided the candidates at the debate. Shortly after that the mandate came about, so he knew something. You guys and the complicit media are making this crap up to make the Republicans look like knuckle-dragging neanderthals that want to ban birth control, ban abortion and put women at home. It's complete crap, ex.

WE didn't make it an issue, you did. And you're so scared of this boogeyman you're missing the bigger picture, and that is what your guy is doing right now in front of your eyes, abolishing our religious rights. Sorry, I won't worship at the altar of the state any more than you'll submit to a theocracy. If we both can't come to an agreement on that then I can't help you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

It's a non-issue ex, I can't be any more straightforward than that. You admit repeatedly that no one is talking about it.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Neither you or tom can assure me that it won't happen.. All you're saying is that nobody is TALKING about it happening.

Well, I am. You COULD assure me that it won't happen, by saying that YOU wouldn't support such a move, that YOU'D fight it all the way, that you DON'T want a Theocracy..

You COULD say those things.. But, you don't. Neither of you will. Which leads me to believe that you're HOPING such a scenario presents itself.

excon

Yawn... you are all over the map here. So now it's not about Santorum ;it's about me.

The only change in law I have suggested is in abortion ;and that's because it kills babies. You have never seen anything from me that indicates I would want a ban on contraception either . You really do have to exorcise your boogymen.

I flat out said I don't want a theocracy. I've said that repeatedly at various junctures, the coming Bush theocracy where he wa going to cancel the elections, didn't happen. I said it when the talk of "dominionists" came up last summer, and I said it today. I've repeatedly said that Roe is settled, it's not going anywhere, it's a moot point. And I'll say now, I don't want anyone to ban birth control. I have no issue with birth control, I'm not Catholic so I don't care if women take the pill. I draw the line at supporting abortion and abortifacients but my opposition to that is not an indication I would ban contraceptives. Just don't force me to pay for yours.

You however still won't join me in fighting for our first amendment rights, which I repeat, are being undermined under your nose. So let's talk about real issues like that, a budget that thinks debt at 900 percent of GDP is no big deal and how Obama is going to battle high gas prices by talking about it in a different way and growing algae, and the Obama scandals being swept under the rug by a complicit media.

So are you willing to discuss real problems are you content in fantasyland?

I have more... Again ;the only one in the political arena who is imposing his values on us is the President . He even went to the National Prayer Breakfast and spouted pseudo-Christianity to justify government actions . So who is the theocrat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yawn ... you are all over the map here. So now it's not about Santorum ;it's about me

---

Hello again, tom:

You can say I'm all over the map. You can get bored.. But, it doesn't change the fact that you won't answer my very simple question.

What would happen to the bill?

Now, you COULD answer me, or you can dance around some more. I expect more dancing. We BOTH know why.

excon

Your hypothetical is not realistic so it doesn't require a serious answer. There is no chance that such a bill would make it out of Congress even if the Congress was 100% Republican . As you guys have delighted in pointing out... The majority of the people favor contraception being legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

So are you willing to discuss real problems are you content in fantasyland?

---

Hello again, Steve:

Santorum COULD win. Your wing is just a few seats away from obtaining a filibuster proof majority in the Senate... That's not fantasy. Obama going to Mars is fantasy. A Republican super majority ISN'T.

In SPITE of your denials above, you STILL didn't answer my question. What would happen to the bill? It's an easy question. Santorum would sign it, or he wouldn't.

Now, you COULD keep on saying I'm bonkers... Or, you could just answer it.

excon

What would happen to your hypothetical bill? It would never make it out of committee. No one wants to ban contraceptives. As tom said, a vast majority of Americans oppose the idea and non-Catholics (who typically don't have an issue with birth control) represent twice the percentage of Christians than Catholics, FACT. It's a non-issue.

The only fact worth debating is the fact that your president wants to ban the church from the public square and as tom rightly said - and judging by his actions with the Obamacare mandate and past remarks - intends for the government to take over that role. He wants Big Brother to be our keeper and has no issue with trampling over our specifically enumerated rights in the process.

Again , I answered your questions more than once and I will not bow at the altar of government any more than you will a theocracy. Fantasyland or reality, your choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yawn ... you are all over the map here. So now it's not about Santorum ;it's about me.

The only change in law I have suggested is in abortion ;and that's because it kills babies.

---

Hi Tom, You might like to get rid of 'personhood' while you are at it. This is the core of the problem. That problem being that under the law a fetus needs to accumulate 'x' number of humanness points before it is legally able to be considered human enough to have rights.

This is just another reason why I am against this legal fiction. It provides a legal and fallacious account of what it is to be human.

Do you still want to embrace personhood?

Tut

Quote:

---

Hi Tom, You might like to get rid of 'personhood' while you are at it. This is the core of the problem. That problem being that under the law a fetus needs to accumulate 'x' number of humanness points before it is legally able to be considered human enough to have rights.

This is just another reason why I am against this legal fiction. It provides a legal and fallacious account of what it is to be human.

Do you still want to embrace personhood?

---

Great idea ! We'll just suspend rights when people act collectively . Good plan. Let's start with labor unions which collect due almost exclusively for the purpose of influencing politics .

This is the law in US Code 1:1... [which means the country recognized the CONCEPT of corporate "personhood " from it's beginning ].

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

It in fact had always been a given in this country until the left realized that some corporations were supporting their opposition . So they added the caveat that corporations can be 'persons' except when it comes to their First Amendment rights. No doubt that's the thinking behind the President's decrees from above about what a religion is.I'm sure in his view Religious institutions have no rights because they aren't people . So all their constitutional protections are at the whim and will and pleasure of the Presidency .

Now a baby on the other hand has always had an indisputable and unalienable right to life. This I know because if a women is assaulted and miscarries it's called 'fetal homicide ' or 'feticide'... at least in the vast majority of the states .

There is also Federal Laws that protect the unborn babies called the 'Unborn Victims of Violence Act', which recognizes the "child in utero" as a legal victim if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any federal crimes of violence.

So in sum both corporations by their existence are entitled to constitutional guarantees... and babies are too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Great idea ! We'll just suspend rights when people act collectively . Good plan. Let's start with labor unions which collect due almost exclusively for the purpose of influencing politics .

This is the law in US Code 1:1 ...[which means the country recognized the CONCEPT of corporate "personhood " from it's beginning ].

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

It in fact had always been a given in this country until the left realized that some corporations were supporting their opposition . So they added the caveat that corporations can be 'persons' except when it comes to their First Amendment rights. No doubt that's the thinking behind the President's decrees from above about what a religion is.I'm sure in his view Religious institutions have no rights because they aren't people . So all their constitutional protections are at the whim and will and pleasure of the Presidency .

Now a baby on the other hand has always had an indisputable and unalienable right to life. This I know because if a women is assaulted and miscarries it's called 'fetal homicide ' or 'feticide' ....at least in the vast majority of the states .

There is also Federal Laws that protect the unborn babies called the 'Unborn Victims of Violence Act', which recognizes the "child in utero" as a legal victim if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any federal crimes of violence.

So in sum both corporations by their existance are entitled to constitutional guarantees ....and babies are too.

---

What a fiction no corporation or legal entity other than a human is capable of acting on its "own". It is directed by humans and while it might be considered separate from the person who directs it, it cannot exist solely in its own right. If it could then a perpetuity has been created and that is against the basic tenets of law.