Rick Santorum is not God, nor does he respresent the inerrant Word of God.

You know I started to answer each one of these statements individually. I have decided that is not needed. I don't need to cover the differences in language in tanslations or limitations of culture of the time. This will be labeled as a troll response, but:

1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

And:

Ephesians 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

These passages tell us God is much smarter than us, and that understanding of His divine Word only comes by Spirit revelation.

Not the answer you're looking for, but the truth.

Please feel free to cite what parts of God's Word is wrong when compared to man made "facts".

The difference is that the one I refer to is an actual human, where your example is a part of a human.

How can someone that was not killed prior to birth even consider advocating for the killing of others prior to birth? It makes that person into a hypocrit.

Sorry, faith in the living God was an completely intrinsic part of life. It was not just a passing thought as you alude to. It also was not just colloquial language as you wish it was.
Perhaps you should rethink your language. It would very much be a sign of insanity to continue calling out to God when you don't believe He even exists. Although it could still benefit your situation as He very much does exist and cares about you.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=98

Where did I disregard women as no longer human? I expect the lives of both women and children, even those in the womb, to be equally respected and fought for.

You claim I misinterpreted the use of the word establishment in my reply to someone incorrectly citing the establishment clause. Then you tell me my reply was off topic? Not following.

I certainly agree there is a huge disparity between people that call themselves Christian today and Christians in the days of the country's founding.
I'll also agree there was certainly no intention of the US ever becoming a theocracy. And I would not want it to be one.
And I tend to agree they had no intention of religion influencing government. They did however have the intention of God's influence. See the dating of the signing of the constitution, "Year of our Lord". See the first amendment proclaimation of Washington praising Almighty God for the drafting. Reference Ben Franklin's, least likely to do this btw, call to the constitutional convention to prayer at the beginning of each day's session for God's guidance in the drafting of the constitution.
These men had no reason to invoke God directly in the constitution. They were forming a God fearing nation; a Christian nation using the definition of Christian from that time. But certainly not a theocracy. The idea of being a secular nation was completely foreign to anyone until the mid to late 1800s.

The constitution specifically forbids any state run church. I am in agreement that is the way it should be. The new testament makes it very clear that the local church is the extent of the circle of oversight of any single spiritual leader established by God.
I also agree that you are fully free to worship whatever god you choose. Grant me the same freedom. Allow me to be free to worship God. Allow me to teach my children the truth about God and His creation.

I am not disagreeing with the general sentiment against religion here either. Religion is flawed. Religion is made by man. Faith, which everyone here possess, does govern individual mans thoughts and actions. So should it also influence their decisions in running government.
The writings of the founding fathers referenced here should be studied by all a little more closely. These fathers did condemn religion of the time and bravo for them. It was flawed. That is why they left England to begin with. But their words are twisted to mean things they did not say. I love how the things that fit with an anti-Christian slant are bolded in reference and the rest of the statement completely ignored. Just as one must rely on the whole counsel of God, the entire bible and not just parts, we also must read the entire writings of the founding fathers, not just parts.

Going specifically to the old legal definition, it specifically has this:

to make (a church) a national or state institution

I agree with that. It is why the people left England. The state run church is not biblical.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,17 that the man of Godt may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Equipped for every good work. So, we should all turn to God in every thing we set forth to do, and do it with His wisdom and guidance. And that absolutely does include governing this nation.

Many here disagree and label these posts as Troll. I am not trolling. I am spreading truth as I am commanded to do. You can ridicule and mock me all you want. As a matter of fact, I thank you for it. I am sad you are following the path of destruction though, and I will pray for you all.

Too many! Even if it was 1 it was way too many.

Both lives should have been equally fought for. If one did not make it, that is extremely unfortunate, but neither should have been sacrificed for the other. What if that choice had to be made between two adults? Both would be fought for as equally as possible. The child in the womb should be fought for no less equally.

I would certainly suggest that neither of those examples represent "men". A man before God would not do such things. In the case of the rape example. Why should the child be killed because the woman was raped? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I am completely opposed to those options as well for the very reason you mention. Both of those options cause spontaneous abortion done deliberately. In both cases, it is murder.

The nazis killed Jews because of their inferior heritage/geneology, not their religion. I don't agree with what they did.

Nice point though. More people have been killed by way of various dictators over the centuries than even the most flawed organized religion.

I am just certain someone will come along and bring up all the life killed under God's direct orders to the Hebrews when entering the land of Canaan. _I_ cannot explain why that was done other than punishment for the sins of those people. Of course, I do not pretend to think I can even fathom the plans God has for us all.

I am pleased you will be sufficiently entertained.

So, 150 million women killed their unborn children? The numbers of children killed is much larger than Planned Parenthood proclaims. What makes these women slaves? While I agree they probably are slaves, not in the sense you try to claim, I contend with your position that having a child makes them a slave to a man. I know a ton of women that would argue vehemently with you.

I don't see anyone fighting to take away anyone's rights. I believe the rights of both the living woman and the living unborn child are equal under the constitution. The right to life should be equally afforded to all. I never said forsake the woman for the child. And I never would. My wife would force the Dr to fight for both lives if either or both were endangered during pregnancy. As any sensible woman would.

Children. The child's body is within the woman's body. Yes, the child is a human being long before being able to live outside the woman's womb. Should a person dependent on life support not be considered human anymore but just a lump of flesh wasting space? Yes, it should be illegal to terminate through deliberate action. It is murder. Yes, illegal through irresponsible action. Same as DUI homicide or poisoning any other person. Yes, illegal through deliberate inaction. Although your example is not necessarily inaction. It is illegal to starve any other human. A line should not be drawn. All life should be equally protected and fought for. Of course, let's stick with the current definition of homicide since this is the killing of a human being.