Yesterday I reported on information that was initially available about Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's religious beliefs and views on church-state issues. In the last 36-hours, many additional pieces of information have been found by bloggers and reporters.
Palin's Religious Affiliation: Melissa Rogers, in her always excellent blog, reports on a number of additional items. In a 2008 Time Magazine interview, Palin said she was baptized as a Catholic, but her family attended non-denominational Christian churches. She identifies herself merely as a "Bible believing Christian". The AP yesterday, reporting that Palin has drawn strong support from Evangelical leaders, said that Palin's home church is an independent congregation, The Church on the Rock in Wasilla (just outside Anchorage). The Big Daddy Weave blog reports that this church was founded in 2000 with just 7 families, but has quickly grown. Palin sometimes also worships at the Juneau Christian Center, which is affiliated with the Pentecostal Assemblies of God. [UPDATE: Apparently Palin's current home church is Wasilla Bible Church, an independent evangelical congregation. AP says she joined this 6 years ago. Before that her home church was Church on the Rock.]
Palin’s Support for Faith Based Initiative: The Roundtable for Religion and Social Welfare Policy reports that Palin was a supporter of Alaska’s Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI) set up by her predecessor in office. A 2007 Anchorage Daily News article reported that Palin's state budget proposed ending $1.5 million in state block grants to three cities and instead placing most of that amount in the budget of the OFBCI for it to distribute more broadly around the state.
Clarification of Palin’s Views on Teaching Creationism: Yesterday’s posting quoted an excerpt from a 2006 PBS interview in which Palin said she favored teaching both evolution and creationism in public schools. Since then, others have pointed out the Palin quickly qualified her statement through an interview with the Anchorage Daily News which reported:
Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.Who Supported Palin for VP: Christianity Today says that Palin was the top pick for VP by Richard Land, policy head of the Southern Baptist Convention. In an Aug. 8 interview with CBS News, Land said that Palin would be the candidate who would most excite Southern Baptists. He explained: "she's a person of strong faith. She just had her fifth child, a Downs Syndrome child. And there's a wonderful quote that she gave about her baby, and the fact that she would never, ever consider having an abortion just because her child had Downs Syndrome. She's strongly pro-life."
.jpg)
Posts
24 comments:
While nice to have somebody who appears to be open-minded even while having clear-cut beliefs of her own, I'm afraid her pro-life stance will alienate the Hillary women, most of whom vote exclusively on the pro-abortion issue. The gender choice will appeal to them, but with their simplistic view of what makes this country tick, and the free killing of unborn babies being their principle concern, I fear McCain will gain few additional votes.
I am not now, nor have I ever been for Hillary. I am however, for free choice which includes abortion which is not, Bob, the killing of babies. Go do your research. I am not now, nor will I ever support Sarah Palin. I am a 60 yr old white mother of 3, grandmother of 5 supporting Obama, who taught constitutional law for 10 years while Hillary did who knows what and Sarah was beauty queen and running the PTA.
Anon, with your constitutional law experience, how can you cavalierly throw out that abortion is not the killing of babies? On what medical certainty have you based your opinion that an unborn infant is NOT deserving of the constitutional right to life the rest of us are? Furthermore, on what constitutional grounds other than out of the justices asses do you determine that killing these infants is a right a la roevwade?
Obama is an excellent choice for you I am sure. He looks nice and can read a teleprompter oh so well. What else could this country need? Let's just hope none of your children or grandchildren amount to much, 'cuz President Obama won't let them keep much of their money. He knows better how to spend their earnings, you know.
I'm sure your great grandchildren will thank you.
I have a curiosity as to what the term "Dominionist" and "Joel's Army" mean.
I have read blogs at other places which indicate that Palin believes in setting up a theocracy with Bible teaching taking precedent over the Constitution.
If this is true, it should be widely debated. If not, widely dispelled.
You are right, Conrad. This fact has been very well concealed. "Joel's Army" is based in the mega-church run by Joel Osteen and has been building a well armed, well financed militia for years. They train in a remote area of the Dominican Republic to avoid detection. Once trained, they are referred to as Dominionists.
Palin is merely a puppet of Osteen. She has been directed, once in office, to seize control of the military, unseat congress and the supreme court and institute a hybrid Catholic Theocracy answering to the Vatican with input from the Christian Evangelicals commanded by Osteen.
You have probably noticed some of their surveillance activities already. They typically fly in helicopters with the acronym "NEWS" painted on the side. It is not yet known what "NEWS" stands for, perhaps a name for the forward guard of the organization.
Diligence, Conrad.
I would love to see an attempt made to come together on the abortion issue. My second child was born when I was in my mid-thirties. The question of amniocentesis came up, and I said that there was really no need to do it, in that I would not be terminating the pregnancy no matter what showed up.
However, while I believe that a baby exists from the moment of conception, there are a fair number of well-meaning people, who are not demons, who don't agree. Why don't we instead figure out a way to ensure that fewer unwanted pregnancies occur?
I'll be voting for Obama not because I agree with his abortion posiiton (I don't) but because I don't see the Republicans doing anything to ensure that teenage girls, or poor women, who are pregnant and don't want to be, have any alternatives. No one helps them, no one ensures that their child is well; when they work later on 60 hours a week to feed the child, they often have jobs that don't give them time off or any health care benefits. I don't call either of those situations to be indicators that one is pro-family. When I see action match Republican rhetoric, I might consider them.
Nice Whine Anon. So it is your preference that the poor young girl you refer to take money from other poor young people who may be in only slightly better financial condition so that she can live easier? Is that fair?
Where is her family? Where is her community, her church, her athiest social club? Why has she estranged herself from all of these societal components that will help, and can be helped by people just like her? Why is it better in your world that Obama's government be the one to take from some to give to others in the name of "helping"?
If a business owner is struggling to stay afloat, struggling to keep as many employees on the payroll as possible and would have to lay off employees or close the business altogether if forced to provide vacations and health benefits to employees who knew there were none when they accepted the job; is that what YOU think is fair and appropriate?
This Obamaland of wealth distribution sounds a lot like some other countries in recent history where only the ruling class lives well and everyone else serves them. I'm glad that is what you call "options".
Wow
I had my third child, planned, at age 39, turning 40 only 4 months later. Life begins at conception,so why debate what God has said? Oh, I forgot, some don't believe what He has said, or even that He IS. But rather than debate that issue, I would like to comment that there are many alternatives for those pregnant women who don't want to carry their child to term. Adoption agencies, pregnancy crisis centers, churches (even if she doesn't belong to any, there are churches who offer aid to non-members),etc. To claim that Republicans must muster all the answers before someone considers voting republican is juvenile. Both sides must end the silly debate about when life begins and begin to aid LIFE! Obama hasn't presented any answers to anyone's satisfaction yet either.
Texas:
I would like to know if Mrs. Sarah Palin believes in the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit all 3 Divine Persons being all one person? I pray she does...
I have no problem with her being our VP.
Please reply...
I don't know if she believes in the Trinity or not but I do have a problem with a mom who just had a 4 month old baby with down syndrom and a grandbaby on the way taking on the second most important office in the world. She is no example of a Christian mom who would have to spend endless hours and even days away from these two vulnerable babies. Has our understanding of parental responsibility so been desencitized so much that we can say oh it's ok for her to be the absent mom to run our country??? Where does this lead us? More absent parenting, more pregnancies of young girls who need their moms? Let's look at what history is teaching us. Family values are going out the door, even with Dr. James Dobson endorsing her! Can you believe that? He thinks it's ok for her to have such an important job that raising her children can take back burner position. His very ministry name is a hypocracy "Focus on the Family" WOW Lord, come quickly!
"...I do have a problem with a mom who just had a 4 month old baby with down syndrom and a grandbaby on the way taking on the second most important office in the world."
I think you can rest easy. That scenario has little chance of playing out.
Bob, I'm a little startled by what you seem to be saying about wealth redistribution.
Surely you realize that every act of taxation is 'wealth redistribution' in some fashion or another. Whether the money pays for roads, public schools, police stations, fire departments, EMS services, or even paying to upkeep our national parks, the amount that I pay for these things is surely disproportionate to my use of these things (either above or below).
If we don't have a problem paying property taxes to the local school to ensure that neighborhood children receive an education, on what basis should we object to paying for subsidized healthcare or assistance to a young mother?
Why should it be incumbent upon her church, her friends, her family, or even her community to aid her when these selfsame people and organizations already came together, created an entity to handle these issues, empowered it to make decisions subject to their review, and authorized it to execute those decisions as the social choice? The government isn't an alternative to the community, Bob. The government IS the community.
Why should the community's empowered servant stand idly by and wait for a community to scrape up the necessary organizational power, resources, and infrastructure to do what the servant was explicitly told to do in the first place - particularly when the community itself WANTS the servant to handle the issue?
Frankly, the alternative of letting her languish in the hopes that the community can step in and figure out how to get its act together seems needlessly cruel and a surefire way to ensure that a young mother's child grows up in abject poverty (unless the child happens to be lucky enough to be born in a family with resources).
Condemning an innocent child to a life of poverty, misery, and deprivation isn't pro-life or pro-family, Bob. It's morally reprehensible - particularly when the 'cost' of helping that child and the millions of others in her place is so negligibly low.
--MD
bob,
Making a satire out of Palin's actual connections to the "Army of God" does not refute those connections. They don't seem to be a military group, but they do seem to be interested in creating a Christian theocracy.
Now, this is unlikely to happen all at once, and I imagine Palin won't make sudden sweeping changes. There would be gradual changes, mostly small but punctuated by fundamental differences.
MD
It was never intended by the founding fathers or the US Constitution (In it's historical context and original intent) for the government to play this kind of role. In fact the wording in the draft is that the people will receive freedom from the government not the freedom of government over the people. It also uses the phrases of the "ensuring" of the public good as opposed to the left's idea of providing for the public good. These "new" ideas of government are based more on European (French Enlightenment thought) which were based on abstract theories of human nature. Instead of historical precedent and the Judea/Christian concept of original sin, which were largely held by the founding fathers. This was also why they saw the danger of too much government and the need for a de-centralized government. This is the exact opposite of what senator Obama believes about the role of government.
Dean -
I agree with you that neither the original intent of the framers of the U.S. Constitution nor its wording initially conceived of government in the fashion I suppose, but I'm in absolutely no sense an 'originalist' Constitutionalist. I find the position to be drastically out of touch with both political reality, the nature of modern legal mechanics, and the fundamental principles of popular, Constitutionally-bound government.
The question isn't whether the founders thought about their government in the way it has evolved; they surely did not. The question is whether the text of the Constitution can bear the modern use of it; it can. No Constitutional right of The People is infringed by social programs that would not also be infringed upon by taxation generally, and if it is something that The People desire (as expressed through their duly elected representatives), then on what basis can it be denied to them?
The Constitution envisions a political system in which the mandate of government is derived from the people themselves, and not from any divine or noble source - government by the people, as it were. And 'The People' have fairly substantially agreed over time to the way that they have created their government. From the programs of the New Deal with radical workers rights reforms to the promises of the Great Society era, 'The People' have seemed to agree that there is a role for their servant to play in ensuring a certain measure of the 'good life' to everybody.
I couldn't disagree more with your assertion that the founders saw danger in having "too much government"; rather, they saw danger in having despotic government. That's a difference that I think makes all the difference in the world here. Their beef with their prior systems of government were twofold: first, that the government didn't take their views into account (or didn't weigh them heavily if it did) - hence, the revolutionary war against the Throne. Second, they reacted against radical decentralization and dissolved the Articles of Confederation in favor of a government with a substantially stronger theme of sharing power between a centralized government and local governments.
The United States Constitution is a legal monument to these two principles - the demand that the people be the source of authority, and that a balance be achieved between federal and state governments. Having the federal government provide certain minimums like health care, education, or the like certainly strengthens the role of the federal government, but I think you've a long way to go down that road before there is even a worry about eliminating the responsibilities of state governments - particularly since nothing prevents state governments from implementing their own programs in these areas unless Congress makes its program exclusive.
I'm not sure where your assertion comes from that Senator Obama doesn't believe in both a mandate from the people and in a balance of federal/state responsibilities. Neither of those sentiments seems to jive with what I've heard of his speeches, policy positions, or older writings. Would you perhaps have some quotes or the like to go a little deeper into that analysis?
--MD
MD:
I find the position to be drastically out of touch with political reality, the nature of modern legal mechanics, and the fundamental principles of popular, Constitutionally-bound government.
Oh really then why even bother following the constitution at all? What’s the point, if you can just pick and chose what you like or dislike. I mean it’s just an old antiquated document with absolutely no relevance to our modern and sophisticated world. I mean we have come so far we have stopped all wars; we’ve gotten rid of all poverty and hunger. Wev’e conquered all racism and we’ve even created the perfect political system. Oh wait a minute we haven’t done any of those things; in fact besides some technological improvements and medical breakthroughs we act just like we did in 1787. Oh that’s okay because Barak will make it all better.
The Constitution envisions a political system in which the mandate of government is derived from the people themselves, and not from any divine or noble source –
This assertion is incorrect in fact the ideas of human dignity and freedom of the framers sprang from the worldview that was directly linked to a divine and absolute source of truth outside of just the autonomous self. The autonomous self, being the source of modern progressivism understandings of pure democracy. No the framers in actuality believed in the need for law to govern over man, because of his potential predisposition to do the wrong thing. Even Thomas Jefferson believed this at first. This is also why Rule of Law was established. It is the concept of a law that transcends one particular historical context. In other words it is permanent and does not evolve and is not “Living”. It is also why the framers set up a constitutional Republic Instead of a “pure democracy”. This allows there to be a guard on the potential tyranny of the majority. The framers recognized the potential danger of this, which is why they set the system up the way they did. They also later saw the bloody results of this tyranny of the majority with the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror.
Having the federal government provide certain minimums like health care, education, or the like certainly strengthens the role of the federal government.
As I said before there is nothing in the constitution that talks about providing healthcare, and education. However it does say something about defense, but you left that part out. Oh and by the way because it wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution in the minds of the framers healthcare was probably seen as a privilege and not a right.
I’ve read your answers to some of these comments and I have to say that you exhibit the typical Republican hatefulness that has come to mark the Republican Party. It along with the deceit is a primary reason the Party is in trouble. As long as the Republican Party has people like you in it, holding elected office, there is little hope that the Republicans and Democrats can restore the government that we use to have. That was a government that got things done, working together for the betterment of the country.
MD I'm sorry if my comments came across harsh and hateful. That was not my intention. I was merely responding to what I think is an error in the understanding of the historical context for the American experiment.Now looking back at what I wrote, I did come off sounding sacastic and arrogant. I do believe in the basic precepts that I stated. However that does not excuse my tone.
I am Sorry
What I find hard to believe is that our country's commander and cheif may be someone that will not even say the Pledge to that country. Someone that loves America, someone that believes in this country should be leading it.
Dean -
"Oh really then why even bother following the constitution at all?"
I think you perhaps misread my position or aren't thinking about the context of that statement I made. My context was about using the concept of 'original intent' to interpret the Constitution. Originalism isn't the only method of Constitutionalism, and it's not even a dominant method if you observe Constitutional interpretation systems worldwide. Heck, I'm not even sure you could say with any certainty that it has been the dominant means of Constitutional interpretation in the United States.
But using a different method of Constitutional interpretation in no way suggests that we should 'pick and choose'. This isn't modern Biblical theology, after all - it's Constitutional law.
The point is that when the Constitution says that Congress can do what is 'necessary and proper' to carry out preceding grants of authority, we don't need to look back to old letters, diaries, or speeches to see what Madison and Jefferson thought was necessary and proper. Their thoughts aren't even remotely relevant. What we need to do is find out what ACTUALLY IS necessary and proper. After all, if the founders (if we could ever agree on who they were) decided that federal criminal laws were neither necessary nor proper, that doesn't mean by necessity that they aren't necessary and proper - it could also entail that the founders were simply wrong about the scope of the law. Indeed, if 'cruel and unusual' meant today what it meant at the inception of the Constitution, we might still allow live burnings. While "Cruel and Unusual" is still the legal standard, society has progressed to the point where we no longer feel that burning people alive is humane and ordinary. The law HAS stayed the same, Dean. What has changed is what that unchanged law allows.
We are indebted to the founders for laying a good path in front of us, but we're not bound to their vision of where that path would take us. If we, today, deem something necessary and proper that they did not deem necessary and proper, you've got to explain why (in a democratic system) the views of hundreds of millions should be outweighed by the voices of dozen or so men dead two centuries.
What we are bound to is the law, and the courts of the United States each day provide further guidance about the shape of that law in an amorphous legalspace that we can't see with our eyes or hear with our ears. It seems positively bizarre to think that as reality changes with technological and social improvements that the contours of our legalspace should remain fixed as if none of these things took place.
I agree with you entirely about the 'origin' of the founders belief in the nature of man. I don't have the historical credentials to investigate the inner thoughts of Adams and Washington, but nonetheless, I think it is likely. The men who drafted the Constitution were heavily influenced by Christian theological ideas. The awful truth of the matter, though, is that this statement should be rightly met with a "So what?"
Again, what we are bound to is the law, not to the frail imaginings of men mired in a world they barely understood. Their view of human nature is an interesting historical curiosity, but does nothing to tell us about the shape of the Law. The standards that they set down in writing for us are instructive, and they remain binding, but the content that each man thought filled that bubble is irrelevant to what ACTUALLY fills it. It is up to us, today, in modern times to ensure that we have filled this part of legalspace with what best approximates truth and justice.
I also agree with you that nowhere in the Constitution does it mention concepts like healthcare or education. However, the absence of a mention of these things isn't identical to a prohibition that government handle these things. There is direct language in the Constitution that says, "Congress shall make no law" and the like; the framers knew how to prohibit something. That they did not prohibit it tells us just as much about what they thought as the fact that they did not give it to the feds as a grant. If we give weight to one, the other must also be given weight.
In the U.S. Constitutional system, everything not granted to the federal government is reserved to the people or the states. Completely apart from the fact that one could easily read regulating matters of healthcare and education into the grants of authority to the Federal Government in Article I (N&P clause again), if we thought it was not included among those, there is still the argument that it belongs to the people - and the people can do with their right as they will. If the people decide that they want social issues to be handled by their servant, on what grounds should it be denied to them?
--MD
Anonymous -
To my knowledge, none of the candidates for the Presidency of the United States refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance, or sing the national anthem, or any other purely symbolic gesture of patriotism.
Of whom are you speaking, and can you provide some examples of a candidate steadfastly refusing to engage in these acts?
As an aside, anonymous, you should really know better than to think that a person's love of their country is measured by how tightly they wrap themselves in the flag - particularly when the cameras are rolling.
--MD
My context was about using the concept of 'original intent' to interpret the Constitution. Originalism isn't the only method of Constitutionalism, and it's not even a dominant method if you observe Constitutional interpretation systems worldwide. Heck, I'm not even sure you could say with any certainty that it has been the dominant means of Constitutional interpretation in the United States.
MD: I want to start off by saying at this point I am starting to feel a little out of my depth here. You obviously know more about the ins and outs of Constitutional law than I do, so I concede to your knowledge of most of the details. You are absolutely right that Originalism isn’t the only method of constitutionalism and that it is not the dominant method, here as well as other places. That being said as far as our constitution is concerned I think that the framers did intend for us to interpret it as it was written, and I think that is important to think about first. In other words what was their intention and also what were the historical precedents that guided those intentions. What I mean by this is not that there weren’t little particular details or nuances that were only specific to their particular historical and cultural context. In other words I know that we cannot interpret the constitution in a literalistic manner. That is not what Originalism is (I know you probably already know that but I’m going to say it any way) Also, just because we and other places don’t place authorial intent as a high priority for interpretation of a constitution or any piece of writing for that matter, doesn’t make it right. The basic ideas that informed the framework of The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights was a basic understanding that human nature was basically selfish and was out for itself (Original Sin as well as the ideas that” Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely”) Also a belief that this nature was fixed in all human beings and that that the essence of this is what makes the rule of law so necessary. Which means that both of these things cannot change. Thousands of years of cyclical human history had shown the framers how self-evident this fact was. So with this set of prior understandings of human nature as evident in human history, they set about assimilating historical precedents. In the American experiment four thinkers were the primary influence on the framers. All of these men had a skeptical view of human nature and stressed the need for restraint via the rule of law. The first was Montesquieu, who believed in ordered freedom maintained by separation powers and by checks and balances. The second was Hume who helped puncture the balloon of the myth of “pure human reason” evidenced by most of enlightenment thinkers in that time. Thirdly Sir William Blackstone who emphasized precedent and usage as well as personal security, liberty, and private property. Lastly there was Edmund Burke’s point of the need for prudence and the reliance on historical precedent as a guide instead of abstract theories based on false views of the potential of human goodness.
It seems positively bizarre to think that as reality changes with technological and social improvements that the contours of our legal space should remain fixed as if none of these things took place.
On this I would challenge you to look back at the period of the late 1800’s just prior to the beginning of the 20th century. We were over thirty years out of the Civil War and it was a period of extreme optimism. We believed because of various technological and medical break-troughs as well as new scientific theories the future was unlimited. Also Oliver Wendell Holmes was applying utilitarian philosophy to his interpretation of law, so that the people would no longer serve the law but that the law would serve the people. A radical departure from what most of the framers believed about the rule of law. We also saw this same approach with Dewy the father of modern public education. All of these events were a result of the modern movement of humanism as influenced by Jean Jacques Rousseau’s theories of the “Noble Savage” which Edmund Burke railed against and later proved the theories ultimate consequences. Rousseau's ideas were directly responsible for The French Revolution, The Reign Of Terror, and ultimately the Rise Of Napoleon. Later on those same theories influenced Marx, then Lenin and finally Stalin and to some degree Hitler. Over all goal of these ideas was the priority of the centralization of government as the salvation of humanity, which will ultimately usher in the future. A future that will render history, the free-market, family, and religion null and void. The problem was that when these same optimistic views of the future in science and technology were applied to human nature, human behavior, male/female relationships and political/economic structures the results were catastrophic. The problem was that this optimism was grounded in the philosophical presupposition that human beings were basically good. And as we know, the results of this false optimism gave way to one of the bloodiest and horrific centuries in history. WWI, WWII, The Holocaust, Stalin’s gulags, Vietnam, the Kamir Rouge, anyway you get my point.
If we thought it was not included among those, there is still the argument that it belongs to the people - and the people can do with their right, as they will. If the people decide that they want social issues to be handled by their servant, on what grounds should it be denied to them?
In this point you are absolutely right. Ultimately it is the people’s decision, however what happens when the people are wrong? What do we do then; just go along with the people because the majority wins? If we simply base order and law on this precept, the next step will either be another totalitarianism or anarchy. Without a transcendent moral order that defines right and wrong and keeps human corruption in check, we will end up repeating the horrors of the 20th century all over again. And this was exactly why the framers relied on historical precedents as well as constitutional/ Representational and the electorial college as a buffer from the dangers of mob rule, totalitarianism, and anarchy . Lastly We can’t just define human progress by the amount of government programs that are in place, and we can’t just assume that we are “modern” people or that we are more “evolved” if we don’t look to the past and historical precedents to light our way. otherwise we will end up in a new dark age like "Modern Man" in the 20th century.
Okay…here we go…
1. Let’s say you down right outlaw abortion? Then what? What is the punishment? We will have abortions and they always have. 6.5 billion freaking people. So it is an ugly reality. Deal with it. If you don’t want one. Don’t get one. Unborn this…unborn that…conception now..conception then. Who gives a rats ass. I have seen photos from other countries where there are dead babies in the gutter and no one even blinks. Humans are a disease. We think too highly of ourselves.
2. WTF is with the religion crap? We look like a bunch of back assward trailer trash with nuclear weapons. Creationism is school….WHAT? If you are going to teach that damn Christian myth then you need to teach about the America Indian story…Hindu and all the others…oh wait..it’s not xian. Look at the Treaty of Tripoli. “The Unite States is not a Christian country. Freedom from religion.
We just had a Christian nut bag for the last 8 years…now look at us. And Palin thinks we are on a mission for GOD. Why is god always on our side? If there is a god…1. Does he need a side? 2. Can’t he punish judge people on his own. He doesn’t need buybull thumpers doing it.
For the sake of personal intelligent dignity …Drop kick that 4000 year book and look in the mirror and think for yourself.
Misitheus:
You are right about one thing. God is not necessarily on our (American's) side. He is on His side, for His glory, and in His timing. You clearly don't believe in the Bible or God, but (my take) the idea of abortion is such a big deal to us who do believe because we know that God creates all human life with purpose, value, and dignity. That may sound crazy to you since you think "humans are a disease". The truth is, I would defend the life of any innocent person. Just because people around the world are used to dead babies in the gutter, does not make the worth of those precious lives any less. We, as humans, can be desensitized to lots of things.
Secondly, as you can probably relate, I don't like public funds going toward the practice of something that I strongly oppose. Yes, people will always have abortions, but my tax dollars do not always have to support the payment for them.
Post a Comment