Replies

From the article:

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 find little to fault in 0bama's reasoning here. However, he never says what he actually means. We are a secular society, not a theocracy. His point is: challenges can not be made based on a Bible verse, belief or doctrine.

Arguments must be based in law, not necessarily 'universal' reasons though, whatever he means by that. Do we follow Pentecostal doctrine, where women do not wear makeup or Baptist doctrine where alcohol is banned or Mormon doctrine where caffeine is prohibited? No, we don't. To do so would usher in the repressive government the left fears and we all should avoid. We are a pluralist society. Everyone's right to drink coffee and put on too much war paint must be protected. I enjoy a beer on occasion, it is my business, no one else has or should have a say about that small pleasure.

The left goes too far in their desire to have an 'anything goes' society where there is no right or wrong. Take a look at conditions in San Francisco. That is where we are headed if they have their way. Conservative arguments and counters to liberal and leftist ideals (actually lack thereof) must point out the folly of the left. They have rarely been right on major issues of history. 0bama's plans for the economy are a good example; we tried all that stuff in the 1930s, didn't work then, won't work now.

The argument against abortion is a simple one for me. It is a violation of the constitution's guarantee to Life. Once an egg is fertilized it has a unique DNA signature, thus it becomes a developing individual, rather than a mass of cells. To assign the fate of a developing child to the convenience of the mother is wrong. (Rape, incest and medical reasons are exceptions here, the decision to deliver is one only the mother can make; hopefully with much prayer.) Birth control is practiced BEFORE conception, not after.

I cheered when McCain answered Pastor Warren that life begins at conception. He was exactly correct. Otherwise, why is it illegal to break Bald Eagle eggs? They are not eagles, why are they protected?

I fear we will see many issues above 0bama's pay grade in the coming years.