The accuracy of her numbers isn’t the point, anyway — it’s the notion that, because there are people of many faiths in the United States, those of the Christian faith must not think or act like Christians when engaging the public square. That is similar to something then-Sen. Obama said a couple of years ago, arguing in a speech before a gathering of liberal Christians that “democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values.”“It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason,” he added. “I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”
That is, as my theologian friend Al Mohler called it, “secularism with a smile” — offered in the form of an invitation for believers to show up, but then only to be allowed to make arguments that are not based in their deepest beliefs. Kathleen Parker has gone even one step further, though. She’s rescinding the invitation altogether.
I'm sorry to say -- very sorry, frankly -- but I agree with Obama here (that was very painful for me). However, faith-based arguments do not work in a constitutional Republic.
Abortion for instance (as it is the topic here), should be argued against from a scientific and constitutional perspective --- no one is to be denied life without due process, science shows us clearly that abortion is the taking of a unique, individual life.