One of the arguments against Santorum is that he’s talking too much about social issues, and that’s going to spell doom for Republicans because they need to concentrate on the economy. We need to get something straight here: when people divide issues between “social” and “economic,” they are creating an artificial separation. As Santorum clearly explains, both in his book and his public appearances, the social traumas we face—family breakdown, abortion, a pleasure-for-me-first mentality—are at the root of our economic woes.

All the relevant statistics show that poverty abounds in single-parent homes, while the poverty rate in two-parent homes is something like 6%. Children growing up in broken homes are far more likely to end up on public assistance, either via welfare or the prison system, the latter being at taxpayer expense also. Government policies that serve to discourage marriage and penalize through taxation those who are responsibly raising children should be a primary concern for politicians.

Freedom of religion was important enough to the Founders to have it mentioned first in a list of freedoms in the Bill of Rights. Churches have always been exempted from taxation because they promote a public good. Now the Obama administration wants to throttle freedom of religion in the guise of providing healthcare. It’s not hyperbole to insist that the current occupant of the White House harbors a certain animosity toward those who hold to conservative/orthodox Christian views.

The old bugaboo that critics of social conservatives continue to repeat is the canard that “You can’t legislate morality.” They emit dire warnings about the “theocrats” who want to invade your bedroom and force an outdated morality on the nation. This criticism is essentially dishonest on all points.

The idea that you can’t legislate morality begs for a definition. What is morality? Well, it deals with the distinction between right and wrong. What are laws? They are statements of what is right and what is wrong. Murder, for instance, is against the law because it wrongly takes the life of the innocent. I would argue that abortion fits into that category as well. Theft is wrong because the thief purloins property that belongs to someone else. Fraud is wrong because it is deception and lying. Murder, theft, fraud. Does anyone really want us to stop enacting and enforcing such laws simply because they have a religious basis? After all, the Bible speaks out against all of these. So when we pass laws to punish those who do such things, are we stepping into an area where government is not supposed to enter? It would be completely foolish to believe so.

Bottom line: all laws are statements of morality. It’s not that we cannot legislate morality; it’s that we cannot avoid legislating morality. The only real question here is whose morality are we going to legislate?

When President Obama imposes mandates on religious organizations that run counter to their deeply held beliefs, isn’t he legislating morality? He’s saying, in effect, that withholding contraception is “wrong.” Soon, he will demand abortion services be provided as well because he believes it is “wrong” not to do so.

So let’s do away with the dishonesty. Morality is the basis for all laws. So-called social issues are at the heart of the spiritual, emotional, and mental health of a nation—and yes, of the economic health as well. The two should never be separated. Rick Santorum is correct to make the linkage.

Sometimes the veil is torn away and we can see the deep and wide chasm that exists in our society. A comment Santorum made the other day has served as the catalyst for showcasing the dichotomous thinking that dominates our culture. The media are in an absolute apoplectic fit over his all-too-true statement that Obama’s theology masquerades as Biblical theology, and that the president’s worldview is decidedly other than Christian.

From both the Right and the Left, Santorum is being taken to the verbal woodshed for breathing such heresy, and for introducing a theological element into the presidential race. Apparently, they don’t believe there is any connection between ultimate reality and politics. I beg to differ.

In fact, he was correct. Obama’s worldview is in direct opposition to a Biblical worldview. Now, Santorum came out later and said that he didn’t mean to imply Obama wasn’t a Christian personally, merely that his worldview was inconsistent with standard, orthodox Christian theology. The only criticism I have of anything Santorum said was that later statement. Of course, as a presidential candidate, one must be careful not to alienate everyone by declaring your opponent a non-Christian, particularly when the “One” is touting his Christianity as often as he has been recently.

However, I’m not running for president, and I will say what Santorum cannot: Obama’s so-called Christianity is not the real thing. His view of Christ and salvation are not Biblical. He is caught up in a spiritual deception, but he’s not a victim—it is of his own making, by his own free will.

Naturally, this will be an ongoing point of attack from Santorum’s challengers. Ron Paul is already saying that social issues should be off the table. Mitt Romney has nothing to run on besides being a businessman, so he doesn’t want anything to do with moral values. Gingrich has so much baggage that he will probably avoid the same, except for disparaging Santorum for standing up for Biblical foundations in society.

In the current field, only Santorum has the lifestyle that reflects a Biblical worldview. For that, I respect him, and I pray for his success.

By the way, new polls show he has a commanding lead in both Texas and Oklahoma. These go along with a big lead in Ohio and a consistent lead in Michigan. That last one is still in play because Romney will be pulling out all the stops there. If Romney loses one of his “home” states, he’s in big trouble.

Romney should be running away with the nomination: he has the money, the organization, the backing of the Republican establishment. But he doesn’t have the hearts of Republican voters. Santorum is filling that vacuum.

My regular readers know that I’ve been sharing some thoughts from Santorum’s 2005 book It Takes a Family. One of the chapters, “Religion and Social Capital,” could have been written in the last couple of weeks, what with the Obama administration’s attempt to coerce religious organizations into providing services that violate their principles. For instance, when talking about “mediating institutions,” and how to strengthen them, Santorum says,

The most important answer is to build up what the village elders have spent decades trying to tear down and drive underground—religious institutions and faith-based organizations. The Democrats today have become the party espousing European-style secularism. They have gone to great lengths to create government bureaucracies to displace  the work that religious groups have done ever since the days of the Pilgrims, and to marginalize and privatize faith and its moral demands altogether. Their approach to government regulation and programming has worked in countless ways to sideline people of faith.

Why is this, one might ask? Why do they pull out all stops to neuter the effects of religion, Christianity in particular? I think Santorum is correct when he notes,

The village elders see churches as serious challengers to their “expert” authority and to their profoundly secularist worldview. For liberals, faith-based organizations are exactly the wrong sort of intermediate institution building the wrong sort of social capital. Consequently, even when the village elders try to incorporate social capital into their own agendas, the resulting “image” of American society looks like some bizarre parallel universe: America the secular.

If anyone believes the Obamacare “mandates” will stop with the latest attempts, or will not spread beyond the contraception issue, Santorum warns of what is still to come [and remember, this was written in 2005]:

Why did the village elders try, among many other things, to require Catholic hospitals to counsel for and provide abortions, require orthodox religious universities to fund gay and lesbian groups on campus, require religious organizations to provide spousal benefits to all unmarried couples, and bar even the Boy Scouts from public schools and public funds.?

Why would such “tolerant” people as the village elders try so intolerantly to force their agenda on religious institutions? The answer is clear. Religious institutions stand between them and the individuals they seek to fashion in their own image.

That’s the true danger: what Santorum calls the “village elders,” who can also be called liberals or progressives, want to remake America in their image. The only thing that stands between them and the realization of their dream is genuine Christian faith. That’s why, in their view, it must be marginalized, or even eliminated.

Do we truly understand this threat? If so, why would anyone who claims to be a Christian help them achieve their agenda? We need to recognize the danger. We need renewed minds.

I [Paul] bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith;

and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.

Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.

The Obamacare mandate for religious institutions to provide healthcare services that violate their beliefs is more serious than most people realize. The focus has been on Catholics and contraceptives, but that’s only the beginning. Since the country as a whole doesn’t hold to the no-contraception doctrine of the Catholic church, the outrage is somewhat muted. What many don’t understand is that it is merely the opening salvo for a full-scale attack on Christianity. Note I said “Christianity,” not religion, because that’s where this administration is headed. Obama can claim all he wants that he is a Christian—and he’s suddenly doing so quite often—but he’s no more a Christian than Bill Maher or Jon Stewart, his ideological allies.

I was surprised, but encouraged, to see some statements from evangelical leaders this week that have taken this threat to heart. They are strong statements, such as this one from Chuck Colson:

We have come to the point—I say this very soberly—when if there isn’t a dramatic change in circumstances, we as Christians may well be called upon to stand in civil disobedience against the actions of our own government. That would break my heart as a former Marine Captain loving my country, but I love my God more. I’ve made up my mind—sober as that decision would have to be—that I will stand for the Lord regardless of what my state tells me.

Then there’s this Twitter comment from Rick Warren, who, you might remember, gave the invocation at Obama’s inauguration:

I’m not a Catholic but I stand in 100% solidarity with my brothers and sisters to practice their belief against government pressure. I’d rather go to jail than cave in to a government mandate that violates what God commands us to do. Would you?

Baptist leader Richard Land added:

The Obama administration has declared war on religion and freedom of conscience. This must not stand. Our Baptist forebears died and went to prison to secure these freedoms. It is now our calling to stand in the gap and defend our priceless First Amendment religious freedoms.

I agree with these leaders. As the apostle Peter said, “We must obey God rather than men.” And we must never put the government in the place of God. Nor can we accord any leader that status.

Our president’s megalomania is already beyond the pale. No matter how many anthems of praise for him that school children are coerced into singing, he’s just a fallen, flawed man. In fact, more flawed than most.

It’s turning into a tidal wave, particularly in the Midwest. What am I talking about? The rapid rise of Rick Santorum in the polls. All you have to do is watch the faces and hear the incredulity in the voices of cable news hosts to know that something is happening that was more than a little unexpected.

A series of new polls coming out of Michigan show Santorum leading Romney anywhere from four points to fifteen. Not a single one favors Romney at this time. Then there is the shocker out of Ohio, a Rasmussen poll showing Santorum with a 42-24 advantage. Even Arizona, where the Santorum forces decided not to waste money because it is a winner-take-all primary like Florida’s, and polls showed Romney with a big lead, now sits at Romney 38%, Santorum 31%. It appears GOP voters continue to have a hard time coming to grips with a Romney candidacy.

Commentators have begun searching for weaknesses in Santorum. They think they’ve found them on social issues. They believe voters will eventually be turned off by his lack of support for contraception and his opposition to gay marriage. First, if we’ve come to the point where opposition to homosexuals demanding marriage is a losing proposition, we’re beyond the pale as a country anyway. I appreciate Santorum standing firm on that one. If that’s a losing position, it’s also a principled and honorable one. Second, Santorum has no plans to make Americans accept his views on contraception. Even those of us who don’t agree with his stance completely on that one know what his aim is—to reduce sexual immorality and enhance the status of marriage and family. As long as he frames these positions carefully and positively, he can win with them.

The biggest problem remaining for Santorum appears to be Newt Gingrich. He hasn’t yet come to the realization that his opportunity has passed him by. He’s even less desirable for Republican voters than Romney.

He used to lecture Santorum to drop out of the race so as not to split the conservative vote. It’s time for Newt to take his own advice.

Fallout from President Obama’s latest proposed budget continues. Critics are getting a lot of ammunition by playing back videos of Obama on the campaign trail before his election, when he called the Bush deficits unpatriotic. Also making the rounds is a speech where he promised to cut the debt in half by the end of his term. I wouldn’t call an additional $5 trillion an exercise in debt reduction. His words have come back to damage him now, and rightly so.

One critic, though, has at least compared the proposed budget to some of the Western world’s finest literature:

Speaking of fantasies:

The question that always troubles me is whether the voters will realize what’s going on, or will they instead fall for the illusion this administration is touting as reality:

Driving off into that sunset could be our last act as a sovereign people.