Rick Santorum now says that he will cut ties with the Thomas More Law Center because he is unhappy with their decision to defend the Dover Area School District's policy on intelligent design. Rick served on the advisory board of the center. He says he chose to resign partially because, as he told the Philadelphia Inquirer, "he was troubled by court testimony that showed some board members were motivated by religion in adopting the policy."

We might understand that, except that this is the mission statement that appears on the Thomas More Law Center's Web site:

By its own admission the Thomas More Law Center is committed to restoring and preserving religious freedom. Therefore, wouldn't Rick assume that any case they chose to litigate would be motivated in some degree by religion? How is it then that Rick was surprised and troubled to find out that some of the school board members were motivated by religion in adopting the intelligent design policy?

Put another way, if the policy hadn't been motivated at all by religion, why would the law center, on whose advisory board Rick served, have taken the case and defended the school district? If Rick thought that there was no religious motivation to the case why didn't he resign in protest of the center's decision to pursue it when that choice was originally made, rather than after the case was lost?

In an opinion piece from January 2005, here's what Rick Santorum said about the Dover Area School Board and intelligent design:

Yesterday, one day after the Dover Area School District was told by a federal judge that their new "more balanced approach to teaching evolution" was unconstitutional, Rick's point of view seems to have, um, grown an opposable thumb. Here's how today's Philadelphia Inquirer describes it:


As you may have previously read on our blog, Santorum's view on intelligent design began to evolve in August 2005 when he told NPR that he wasn't "comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom." Click here to listen to the NPR interview.

That was especially interesting in light of the fact that, in 2002, Rick wrote an op-ed in the Washington Times in which he claimed: "intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."

Well, it's no wonder Rick is starting to question intelligent design. His changing opinion of it over the past few years is clear evidence that evolution occurs.

Judging by some recent letters to the editor that have appeared in Pennsylvania newspapers, central Pennsylvania residents are not buying what Rick Santorum and Americans for Job Security have been selling when it comes to Rick's record on Social Security.

First, we have "Santorum's Gall", which appeared in the Harrisburg Patriot-News. Lynwood E. Outzts of Carlisle has this to say:

Next up we have "Santorum Should Go", submitted to the York Dispatch by Thomas Clarke of York:


It seems that at least a few Pennsylvanians don't see Rick as the savior of Social Security that he apparently believes he is.