Anyhoo, in the OP Wilson writes:

Historically speaking, the modern idea is that religious rites should only be permitted to those prepared to jump through certain intellectual hoops as an entrance requirement.

This is why no one takes liberal Christians very seriously. The idea that the Christian faith only recently–in modern times–took belief seriously is laughably dishonest. You have disputes about what Christians should believe in the New Testament itself. Paul was pretty clear on this point, too. He said if Christ wasn’t crucified and resurrected, than all the preaching and writing he did was in vain; it’s worthless.

The liberal Christian groups have followed Wilson’s advice. They’ve long since given up on any serious belief, and let’s look at where their memberships have gone: through the floor. Lord knows, I don’t want to waste my Sunday morning getting hectored by some miserable lesbian in vestments for the sake of some theology I don’t even buy into.

If Wilson wants to hold onto the forms of Christianity but dispense with the belief, fine, but at least recognize that this is a radical break with all of Christian history. It is a revolution, and it will not be welcomed as an improvement by those who will be dispossessed.

IOW, rite and ritual are pretty well built into the typical American’s mental operating system in the year 2012. We aren’t THAT different from Romans of the Republic cutting oxen apart on the Senate steps to examine the entrails each New Year, we might not be that far from the Aztec crowds gathered at the base of sacred pyramids watching as human hearts were flung into braziers — while bodies rolled down the steps to butchers’ wagons. We might not be all that different from AN Wilson and his ungodly Anglican hierophants.

If Santorum is the nominee, I’ll vote for him, but only because I’d vote for ANYONE over Obama. But holy f-ing Christ, Santorum? Really? He couldn’t just focus on the coercive nature of the abhorrent mandate. He HAD to get down into the weeds of the pros and cons of contraception. (And yes, Obama “started” this by mandating contraception, but Santorum the Scold took the bait like a fool).

I read something by Paul Ryan the other day that clearly and succinctly laid out the case for why the mandate is an unconstitutional overreach, and he did it while explicitly dismissing contraception as even relevant to the discussion.

I get why people are sour on Romney, I really do. And I get it that Gingrich is unacceptable. But I really am beginning to fear that the single most destructive politician of my lifetime will win another term – despite spending the country into oblivion, despite defying court rulings to resume drilling in the Gulf, despite upending bankruptcy law vis a vis secured/unsecured creditors, despite the myriad and nearly uncountable discrepancies between his rhetoric as a candidate and his record as an executive, despite the most transparently demagogic and poisonous class warfare routine I’ve ever seen, despite massive unemployment, high-and-staying there gas prices, and finally, despite his completely unlawful seizure of ONE SIXTH of the economy – that despite all this, the Half-Blood Prince of Paradise will win another term because the GOP can’t produce an f-ing candidate with the right combination of intellect, temperament, and charisma to EVEN LAY OUT THE CASE AGAINST HIM convincingly.

It’s getting the to point that if we lose, I’m going to seriously blame Paul Ryan for not running. What was his excuse again? Besides cowardice? He absolutely schooled Obama at the Blair House. He would shred Obama on substance and his style is not off-putting to moderates. The base knows he’s sincere. He’s not a culture warrior and he’s not a loose cannon. He’s likeable, presentable, and quick on his feet.

And we’re stuck with a Jesus-freak, and empty suit, and a unguided, unstable rocket. THE FCUK!

Again, I wouldn’t have voted for the bill, and I’m still pulling the lever for Romney. I not a Santorum fan, but what he’s talking about is at an entirely different stage of pregnancy, and it carries a not insignificant risk for what appears to any normal non-sociopath to be a human being.

This story from the Washington Post is very much to the point. Here’s the key extract:

“An amendment by Del. David Englin, D-Alexandria, would have allowed medical professionals to determine whether images can be obtained without being penetrated by equipment used in the ultrasound.

“Women would have to give written consent to such a probe under Englin’s amendments, but not to sonograms that are not invasive. The amendment failed on 64-34 vote, setting the bill up for final House passage.

I can’t tell, because the story is very unclear–par for the course with today’s journalists–but Santorum appears to be talking about amniocentesis tests. These are “standard” in that they are performed, but they carry some risk to the fetus. There’s something like 1 in 500 risk of an abortion (IIRC). Now this is a 20 week fetus, with arms, legs, heart, brain, etc. I’ve seen the 4d Ultrasound image, and THAT was a baby. I say this, even though I’m as atheist as anyone here, but don’t tell me what I saw there was not human. I have to go with Hitchens here, and say to argue otherwise makes you a f***ing liar.

The imaging the GOP is talking about is not invasive (unless you give credence to the sound causing distress). The idea is to give the woman involved an idea of what she’s doing. I’m not wild about the law, but it involves a test that is way, way different than what Santorum is probably talking about.

Again, I’m not sure because the CBS report is so damned obscure–almost willfully so. Unsurprisingly, “sophisticated” conservatives gobble this up because it affords them a chance to look cool to their liberal betters, whom they always seem eager to appease.